Skip to comments.What Will John Kerry Do In The War?
Posted on 10/03/2004 2:47:14 PM PDT by Ramman
During the debate on foriegn policy, Sn. John Kerry said of going into Iraq, "We had Saddam Hussein trapped."
And in a speech at New York University, New York, NY, September 20, 2004:
"I would have tightened the noose and continued to pressure and isolate Saddam Hussein--who was weak and getting weaker-- so that he would pose no threat to the region or America."
Yet, in a speech before the Committee on Armed Services and Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, Joint Hearing, September 3, 1998, Kerry Expressed Opposition to ``Policy of Containment:''
"So we've got a major set of choices to make here. And we'd better make them. We've been sliding into a fundamental policy of containment, which I share with Major Ritter the notion is disastrous to our overall proliferation interests and disastrous with respect to the Middle East and our interests with respect to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. But we have to make a decision whether we're prepared to do what is necessary, and I mean to the point of a sustained targeting of the regime; not the Iraqi people, but the regime."
Clearly Sn. Kerry did not wish to contain Saddam, but wanted him destroyed. he intoned that we had to do what was necessary to eliminate Saddam from his position as he was a danger to the world. Is this not what President Bush has done?
In the debate, reffering to President Bush, John Kerry said, "He also promised America that he would go to war as a last resort."
But what war? Is this even a war in Kerry's mind? In his speech at New York University in 20 SEP 04, he certainly seems to think so.
". . . the events of September 11 reminded every American of that obligation. That day brought to our shores the defining struggle of our times: the struggle between freedom and radical fundamentalism. And it made clear that our most important task is to fight . . . and to win . . . the war on terrorism."
However, on 6 MAR 04, in the New York Times, Kerry said,
"The final victory in the war on terror depends on a victory in the war of ideas, much more than the war on the battlefield. And the war--not the war, I don't want to use that terminology. The engagement of economies, the economic transformation, the transformation to modernity of a whole bunch of countries that have been avoiding the future."
In the debate, the President said,
"My opponent looked at the same intelligence I looked at and declared in 2002 that Saddam Hussein was a grave threat.
He also said in December of 2003 that anyone who doubts that the world is safer without Saddam Hussein does not have the judgment to be president."
I agree with him. The world is better off without Saddam Hussein."
From John Kerry,
"And Iraq is not even the center of the focus of the war on terror..."
And from the New York University speech:
". . . Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight."
Yet, on 15 DEC 03, John Kerry told Fox News Special Report,
"Iraq ``Is Critical'' To Success of War on Terror: Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror. And therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that."
Again from the speech to New York University, Kerry told us,
"Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war."
Senator John Kerry, in the Speech to the 2002 DLC National Conversation, New York, NY, July 29, 2002, Kerry originally Agreed With removing Saddam Hussein:
"I agree completely with this Administration's goal of a regime change in Iraq--Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991."
John Kerry told MSNBC's ``Hardball,'' October 10, 2002, Kerry Cited Saddam's ``Breach of International Values'' as Cause for War.
"I believe the record of Saddam Hussein's ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force if necessary."
Back at the University of New York, Kerry tells us,
"We now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and posed no imminent threat to our security."
In the Los Angeles Times, January 31, 2003,
"If you don't believe . . . Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me.''
And on CNN's ``Inside Politics,'' August 9, 2004, Kerry told us:
"Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it's the right authority for a president to have. But I would have used that authority as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively. I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has."
"Effectively?" And what would this be?
John Kerry told us on CNN's ``Larry King Live,'' December 14, 2001, that the war on terror does not end with Afghanistan and that we need to continue pressure on Saddam Hussien:
"I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein."
But in the debate, Kerry told us that whatever plan we had, would have to pass a, Global Test!" Kerry mentioned that we would have to go to the UN and that we would have to build a coalition and utilize their resources to win the war. Basically we have to have global support to accomplish anything.
Yet, Kerry dissed the existing coalition and attacked the Iraqi prime Minister just 30 minutes after he made a speech before the joint session of Congress, a speech the Sn. did not see fit to attend. But this is not the first time Kerry has questioned the existance or possibility of support, even from those he claims as his personal supporters and allies.
On 19 SEP 04 in the New York Daily News, a French official told us that, "If Kerry is elected, we wouldn't send troops either," the unnamed official told the New York Daily News. "We don't need any more targets in Iraq."
In a New York Post article on 29 SEP 04, the French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin is quoted as saying, "The Iraqi insurgents are our best allies."
John Kerry knew this. On 12 NOV 97, Kerry told CNN's Crossfire:
"So clearly the allies may not like it, and I think that's our great concern--where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity, but in a sense, they're now climbing into a box and they will have enormous difficulty not following up on this if there is not compliance by Iraq."
"But it's not the first time France has been very difficult, as the congressman 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."
On 22 MAY 02, Kerry told Bill O'Reily:
" So I think it's a more confused bag than just Iraq, but I think they're wrong on Iraq. I mean, plain and simply, the United States will have to do what we need to do, and our best judgment to protect our national security. And quite frankly, if we do what we need to do, it will also wind up protecting Europe.''
But of course, as the Prsident reminded us during the debate, on more than one occasion Kerry told us that this is the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place!
So, where does John Kerry stand on the war? What will he do differently? How will he protects the country? I still do not know! I guess it all depends on who he is talking to, when he is saying it and what point he wishes to drive home at the time he is doing it. The President is right when he told us at the debate,
"He said I misled on Iraq. I don't think he was misleading when he called Iraq a grave threat in the fall of 2002.
I don't think he was misleading when he said that it was right to disarm Iraq in the spring of 2003.
I don't think he misled you when he said that, you know, anyone who doubted whether the world was better off without Saddam Hussein in power didn't have the judgment to be president. I don't think he was misleading.
I think what is misleading is to say you can lead and succeed in Iraq if you keep changing your positions on this war. And he has. As the politics change, his positions change. And that's not how a commander in chief acts."
Just heard Juan Williams, bless his soul, on Fox saying that is a NUANCE, that Kerry didn't change his position, this is just a matter of NUANCES! Bwa Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
sKerry is scary!
He will run like the scared rabbit he is.
NEW KERRY MUSIC RAP VIDEO!
Politicize it to the fullest extent that he can and then say "What War"?
What Kerry will do in the war is watch from the senate floor.
That is the only rap song that I have ever listened to start to finish.
I am not John Kerry but I endorse this message anyway.
Juan, the ignorant fool.
"George Bush won't change his mind like John Kerry has".
Cut off funding to NPR. On Fox, at least he earns his pay as a punching bag for Brit Hume.
LOL ! This Video of Kerry is hilarious!:
Sent that video to my grandson..LOL
The same thing he did about Nam. Give aide and comfort to the enemy then cut and run. That's 'ole yellow stain.
The French, as a quasi Islamic state, can not send troops. The people will take to the streets and the cities will burn. I don't think the French government even has an option of sending troops, they have created a monster of their own citizens,
Thanks for the ping!
I don't think he knows whos side he's on. Whoever's around at the time I believe.