"AT THAT TIME" - Everyone *thought* Iraq had WMD's.
"AT THAT TIME" - Everyone *knew* N. Korea had WMD's (and missles capable of delivering one to the western states).
I see N. Korea as the biggest threat.
You may have seen it like that, but the guy you agree with most certainly thought differently. Bill Clinton seemed willing to believe they were only looking to get cheaper power to run all the washers, dryers, and TV's in N. Korea. Was Clinton just a rube? Let's see what the "horse's" mouth had to say about what was his "biggest threat concern:
"In the wake of September 11, who among us can discount the possibility that those weapons might be used against our troops or our allies in the region? And while the administration has failed to prove any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might provide weapons of destruction to some terrorist group bent on destroying the United States? 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. 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."
SourcePlease read clearly his words. "...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?"
We could act alone if the threat is imminent, OR, eliminate this deadly threat by acting
NOW in concert with the international community.
If no one wants to act, we act alone if the threat is imminent, OR, act NOW with cooperation from other countries. Now, I'm no rocket scientist, but I DO know that Britain is another country. Australia is another country. Poland is another country. Spain WAS another country, as was Italy....are you seriously trying to argue that the words uttered by Kerry himself were NOT followed by Bush? According to Kerry's own words, in what possible way can you state that he would have acted differently?
It's all well and good to sit here and debate whether N. Korea posed a greater threat, but the man who is running against President Bush can be directly quoted as saying that he would have done exactly what Bush DID. The man those words can be attributed to ALSO just happened to be privy to the exact same information the President had in order to make that decision.
You may want to overlook that fact, but John Kerry had the same information, and failed to vote contrary to Bush's actions. If he now disagrees
with his own words and advice and states Bush is doing everything wrong, then he is guilty and unfit to be president. Guilty of what, you ask? Guilty of
EITHER wanting to fight the wrong war (again, his words),
OR guilty of not having enough leadership to vote against the war. Take your pick, but he's clearly guilty.
You stated that we "thought" Iraq possessed WMD's. Here's the condensed list of post-9/11 quotes attributed to the folks you seem to think are capable of leading our country in a time of war they now don't want to wage. Pay close attention...each is speaking of something they know. Check 'em out:
"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..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 |
Source"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."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 |
Source"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 |
Source"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 |
Source"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 |
Source"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 |
Source"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 |
Source"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 |
Source"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 |
Source"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 |
Source
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
Send this topic
Print
Topic: Good debate (Read 16938 times)
