Famous Quotes on Iraq

Excellent research and post. I believe by calling the president a liar the Democrats who are saying this are hoping no one will notice that they too agreed with the general impression that Saddam had WMD. This position by them is the lie that should be exposed.

Iraq War

"Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ... to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war." letter from Senator John Kerry to Wallace Carter of Newton Centre, Massachusetts, dated January 22 [1991]

And at the same time, he wrote this:

"Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf." Senator Kerry to Wallace Carter, January 31 [1991]

Did you know?? As Michael Dukakis' lieutenant governor, Kerry authored an executive order that said the state of Massachusetts would refuse to take part in any civil defense efforts in response to a nuclear attack on America.

Nov 12, 1997: In response to a question about unanimity over a U.N. resolution, kerry responded: 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....It was disappointing a month ago not to have the French and the Russians understanding that they shouldn't give any signals of weakening on the sanctions and I think those signals would have helped bring about this crisis because they permitted Saddam Hussein to interpret that maybe the moment was right for him to make this challenge. crossfire

Feb 23, 1998: "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East." The Disgrace of John Kerry by Kevin Willmann Saturday, April 05, 2003

Oct 9, 1998: "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others.

Oct 10, 1998: "We know from our largely unsuccessful attempts to enlist the cooperation of other nations, especially industrialized trading nations, in efforts to impose and enforce somewhat more ambitious standards on nations such as Iran, China, Burma and Syria, that the willingness of most other nations — including a number who are joined in the sanctions to isolate Iraq — is neither wide nor deep to join in imposing sanctions on a sovereign nation to spur it to `clean up its act' and comport its actions with accepted international norms." Senate Floor Speech Try to figure out what he just said there!

Sep 6, 2002: "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act." Op-Ed, "We Still Have A Choice On Iraq," The New York Times

Oct 9, 2002: "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." Senate Speech

Oct 9, 2002: "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation."

Oct 9, 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. johnkerry.com speeches (Thanks Scot!)

Oct 9, 2002: "Regime change has been an American policy under the Clinton administration, and it is the current policy. I support the policy. But regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war--particularly unilaterally--unless regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq of the weapons of mass destruction pursuant to the United Nations resolution." Speech on senate floor (Thanks Aaron)

Jan 23, 2003: "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

Sep 14, 2003: “I don’t think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We’re not going to cut and run and not do the job.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,”) (watch)

Sep 14, 2003: “I don’t think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to – to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That’s irresponsible. What is responsible is for the administration to do this properly now.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,”) (watch)

Dec 2, 2003: Did I expect George Bush to fuck it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did. Now that's what I call presidential! www.johnkerry.com

Dec 15, 2003: "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..."

Jan 30, 2004: "I think there has been an exaggeration," Mr. Kerry said when asked whether President Bush has overstated the threat of terrorism. "They are misleading all Americans in a profound way." washtims (Thanks Michael!)

Mar 16, 2004: "I actually did vote for his $87 billion, before I voted against it." Newsmax (Listen) (Listen)

Mar 17, 2004: "For a President, the decision may be lonely, but that does not mean that America should go it alone." (Remarks At George Washington University, Washington, DC)

Apr 7, 2004: When speaking of terrorist Shiite imam Muqtada al-Sadr's newspaper, which was shut down by coalition forces last week after it urged violence against U.S. troops, Kerry complained to National Public Radio, "They shut a newspaper that belongs to a legitimate voice in Iraq." Then, finding another way to parallel what Ted Kennedy was saying this week: "If all we do is make war against the Iraqi people and continue an American occupation, fundamentally, without a clarity as to who and how sovereignty is being turned over, we have a very serious problem for the long run here" newsmax Well, it's clear that the Iman enjoys the support of JFK and Ted Kennedy:

Shiite terrorist leader Muqtada al-Sadr was so impressed with Sen. Ted Kennedy's portrayal of the war in Iraq as "George Bush's Vietnam," he's picked up the theme himself. "Iraq will be another Vietnam for America and the occupiers," al-Sadr said in a statement issued from his office in Najaf.

Al-Sadr's remark mirrored Kennedy's own anti-war blast, when he told the Brookings Institution, "Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam."

"I call upon the American people to stand beside their brethren, the Iraqi people, who are suffering an injustice by your rulers and the occupying army, to help them in the transfer of power to honest Iraqis," the al-Sadr statement continued, according to the Associated Press.

No doubt Sen. Kennedy will echo the al-Sadr sentiment in his next address. newsmax

April 27, 2004: Just a few weeks ago in a speech, he said: "George Bush sold us on going to war with Iraq based on the threat of weapons of mass destruction. But we still haven't found them. ... We were misled about weapons of mass destruction." But there's a different view today. "It appears, as they peel away the weapons of mass destruction issue - and we may yet find them," newsmax

May 11, 2004: "What has happened is not just something that a few, you know, privates and corporals or sergeants engaged in." newsmax Once again, showing how you can disregard the facts, creating your own in order to score points with the demon-crat supporters...

May 13, 2004: "I will fight a more effective war on terror because I would never have thrown out of the door or window the obligations of the Geneva Conventions," newsmax Aha! So the prison guards were told not to follow the Geneva Convention??!!?? And secondly, how does this make you more effective at the war on terror?? JFK, I question your intelligence.

July 8, 2004: On Larry King Live, King asked: News of the day, Tom Ridge warned today about al Qaeda plans of a large-scale attack on the United States. Didn't increase the -- you see any politics in this? What's your reaction? to which JFK responded, "Well, I haven't been briefed yet, Larry. They have offered to brief me. I just haven't had time." Gee, sorry you've been so busy that you have felt that fundraisers were more important than you keeping up-to-date with national security... and.. when asked about where he was on 9/11: "I was in the Capitol. We'd just had a meeting - we'd just come into a leadership meeting in Tom Daschle's office, looking out at the Capitol. And as I came in, Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid were standing there, and we watched the second plane come in to the building. And we shortly thereafter sat down at the table and then we just realized nobody could think, and then boom, right behind us, we saw the cloud of explosion at the Pentagon. And then word came from the White House, they were evacuating, and we were to evacuate, and so we immediately began the evacuation." I'm sure glad our president didn't have the same reaction...

July 26, 2004: "You don't value families if you force them to take up a collection to buy body armor for a son or daughter in the service." newsmax Gee, and to think you voted AGAINST getting the body armor for the troops....

Aug 9, 2004: Bush challenged Kerry to answer whether he would support the war "knowing what we know now" about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction that U.S. and British officials were certain were there. In response, Kerry said: "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have." Must be another one of those "I'm for it, but against it because I'd do a better job of it" moment....

Kerry's real record on national defense

By Robert J. Caldwell

October 10, 2004

Call this a national security election. George W. Bush or John Kerry will win Nov. 2 based largely on the public's perception of which is most likely to keep America strong and secure in the face of a global terrorist threat.

Putting aside campaign spin, what's the most reliable indicator of the better national security choice in this race? What the wise voter will heed are deeds, not words.

Bush's relevant record on national security began with 9/11. After the most devastating terrorist attacks in American history, Bush ordered a global military, political, diplomatic and law enforcement offensive against al-Qaeda, the terrorist organization that killed 3,000 Americans.

In a stunningly successful U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan during 2001-2002, al-Qaeda was hammered to pieces and its base camps were destroyed. Its state sponsor, the Taliban regime, was crushed and ousted. In 2003, a three-week U.S. military campaign in Iraq removed Saddam Hussein, an international outlaw, ally of Mideast terrorism and previous possessor and user of weapons of mass destruction. The bloody, and partially botched, aftermath in Iraq made the war controversial but its initial accomplishments remain.

Bush vows to finish the job in Iraq and relentlessly pursue al-Qaeda.

Kerry's 20-year voting record in the U.S. Senate constitutes the bulk of his documented national security record. What does that record tell us about John Kerry's career-long mindset on national security and American military strength? It's a question that deserves much closer scrutiny than it has received to date in this campaign.

As the newly elected junior senator from Massachusetts, Kerry arrived in the U.S. Senate in 1985 as an outspoken opponent of the Reagan-era defense buildup at the height of the Cold War confrontation with the Soviet Union. During his 1984 Senate campaign, Kerry proposed slashing $54 billion from then-President Reagan's proposed $289 billion 1985 defense budget. Kerry's proclaimed long-range goal was to slice a Pentagon-gutting $200 billion from defense over four years.

This at a time when the Soviet Union, we know now, was lavishing up to 30 percent of its entire economic output on arms building and the military. The Reagan buildup, by contrast, moved U.S. defense spending from five percent of the U.S. economy's gross domestic product to 6.5 percent – one fifth of the Soviet Union's proportional effort.

A 1984 Kerry campaign position paper called for canceling virtually the entire Reagan defense buildup, and more. Kerry's proposed hit list of weapons systems he favored eliminating included: the Los Angeles class nuclear attack submarine, the Trident I submarine, the Trident I and Trident II submarine missiles, the Midgetman and Pershing II cruise missiles, the Navy's Aegis air defense destroyer and Aegis air defense cruiser programs and production of nerve gas munitions (a counter to the Soviet Union's growing arsenals of chemical and biological weapons).

A subsequent Kerry position paper for his 1984 campaign proposed canceling an even longer list of defense projects: the MX intercontinental ballistic missile, the B-1 bomber, the missile-defense Strategic Defense Initiative, the Army's AH-64 attack helicopter, the Patriot air defense missile, reactivation of U.S. battleships, the Marines' AV-8B Harrier vertical takeoff fighter-bomber, the Air Force's F-15 fighter program, the Navy's F-14/A and F-14/D fighter aircraft programs, the Phoenix air-to-air missile and the Sparrow air-to-air missile.

The same Kerry position paper also called for a 50-percent reduction in production of the Tomahawk cruise missile, the Navy's primary long-range strike missile.

Once in the Senate, Kerry compiled a long and consistent record of voting against defense.

Kerry cast at least 10 votes from 1990 to 1996 against funding the Navy's Aegis air defense destroyers and cruisers, the backbone of the fleet's carrier escort force. In 1988, he voted to decommission two Navy aircraft carriers. From 1989 to 1996, Kerry voted 17 times to stop funding for the Air Force's B-2 Stealth bomber, the technological wonder which played central roles in the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns. In 1990 and again in 1996, Kerry cast five votes to stop production and upgrades of the Army's Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the indispensable infantry-carrying complement to the Army's M1A1 tank forces.

Kerry voted six times in 1990, 1995 and 1996 against funding for the Air Force's C-17 long-range transport aircraft, vital for providing strategic reach for U.S. forces. He voted eight times in 1990, 1995 and 1996 to eliminate funding for the Navy's F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet fighter-bombers, now the core strike strength of Navy carrier air wings. Kerry voted against further funding for the F-16, the Air Force's main tactical fighter, at least nine times in 1990, 1995 and 1996.

Kerry voted twice in 1990, on the eve of Desert Storm, to cancel the Patriot Air Defense Missile system, the Army's principal air defense weapon. Kerry opposed the Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, voting twice against funding this war-winning reconnaissance and intelligence drone in 1995 and 1996.

Kerry cast four votes in 1990, 1995 and 1996 against further funding for the Navy's Tomahawk cruise missile, which proved a brilliant success in the 1991 Desert Storm campaign and later in both Afghanistan and Iraq. On at least five occasions from 1990 to 1995, Kerry opposed a new amphibious assault aircraft carrier for the Navy. He voted twice against the Air Force's F-22 Raptor advanced tactical fighter and then cast at least five more votes against F-22 funding in 1995 and 1996. Kerry also opposed the F-35 strike fighter, a joint Navy-Marine-Air Force project, in 1996.

In all, Kerry opposed and voted against some 40 weapons systems that now constitute the core strength of America's armed forces. These were the arms that won the Cold War and vanquished the Soviet Union without firing a shot, that brought victory in the 1991 Desert Storm campaign at a miraculously low cost in American casualties and that now equip U.S. forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world from Korea to Bosnia.

Kerry cannot pretend that these votes were only procedural technicalities. He cannot argue that the weapons systems he opposed were merely superfluous or, after 1991, Cold War relics. In case after case, these are the weapons American forces are using today.

In fact, these votes reflected an anti-defense mindset that put Kerry well to the left of the Senate's Democratic caucus and left, too, of even Ted Kennedy. Without the high-tech, war-winning weapons that Kerry tried so hard to kill, U.S. military forces today would be far less effective against our enemies. They would be relegated to using obsolete, worn-out equipment. And they would be doomed to suffer far higher casualties.

Voters can decide whether Kerry's 20-year pattern of voting to disarm America's men and women in uniform counts more than his campaign accusations today about too little body armor for the troops in Iraq. Supremely cynical, some might say.

In 1990, the consistently dovish Kerry voted against military action by the U.S.-led coaltion, 34 nations strong, to reverse Saddam Hussein's invasion and conquest of Kuwait. Following the Gulf War and with terrorism a rising threat to America and its allies, Kerry voted to slash $6 billion from the $30 billion U.S. intelligence budget.

John Kerry quite deliberately chose to announce his candidacy last year for the Democratic presidential nomination against the backdrop of the World War II aircraft carrier Yorktown, preserved as a museum in Charleston, South Carolina. The intended message was obvious: Kerry the reborn hawk and advocate of military strength. The Democratic National Convention he crafted last August to underscore his Vietnam service (but not his anti-war radicalism after he returned) was intended to send the same signal: Kerry the warrior.

Voters must now decide which is the more reliable portrait: the warrior pose today or the 30-year record that began with Kerry's leadership of the far-left Vietnam Veterans Against the War followed by nearly two decades of voting in the U.S. Senate against defense and against a strong American military.

Caldwell, editor of Insight, can be reached via e-mail at robertcaldwell@uniontrib.com

Don't forget about John Edwards.....

EDWARDS COSPONSORS IRAQ RESOLUTION October 2, 2002

WASHINGTON: Senator John Edwards on Wednesday cosponsored a resolution authorizing the president to use military force to defend the United States against Iraq and enforce relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. This resolution will show that America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," Senator Edwards said.

A member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Edwards said Iraq continues to defy the United Nations and represents a grave threat to the United States and its allies.

A bipartisan resolution on Iraq hammered out by congressional leaders and the White House paralleled three provisions Senator Edwards spelled out last month in calling on Congress to authorize measures against Iraq.

First, the joint Senate and House resolution would give the president authority to use military force against Iraq to enforce relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. Second, it calls on the president to work with the U.N. to make Iraq comply with its resolutions, but authorizes force if diplomatic means fail. Third, the resolution focuses on what happens in a post-Saddam Iraq and its transition to democracy.

ping

http://www.nationalreview.com/babbin/babbin200410080833.asp

233 members of Congress have visited the troops in Iraq so far.
One hundred ninety-one were House members: 121 Republicans, and 70 Democrats.
Forty-two were senators: 24 Republicans and 18 Dems.
Eight senators have made two trips, and one has made three.

Neither Kerry nor Edwards has taken
time away from manicures, hairstyling appointments, and campaign
stops to talk to the men and women who are putting their lives on the
line in Iraq and to see the facts on the ground.

That's leadership for you.

In the Kerry supporters own words about the Swift Boat Vets

"They weren't there. They have no room to talk!"

"It is clear that in the 4 years since the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out, Saddam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction. According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 kilometer restriction imposed by the United Nations in the ceasefire resolution. Although Iraq's chemical weapons capability was reduced during the UNSCOM inspections, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort over the last 4 years. 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 4 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. 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."

"According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons."

"In the wake of September 11, who among us can say, with any certainty, to anybody, that those weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater--a nuclear weapon--then reinvade Kuwait, push the Kurds out, attack Israel, any number of scenarios to try to further his ambitions to be the pan-Arab leader or simply to confront in the region, and once again miscalculate the response, to believe he is stronger because he has those weapons?"

"And 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?"

John Kerry, October 09, 2002

"[A]s a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has aggressively and obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability--a capability that could be less than a year away."

John Edwards, September 12, 2002

"For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."

"Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction."

John Edwards, October 10, 2002