WMD Lies

ElfDude · Post by **ElfDude** » Tue Sep 28, 2004 5:22 pm

Sorry to ressurect this tired old thread, but something came up in the last day or two that I just couldn't pass on.

John Kerry yesterday stated, "Every step of the way, this president and the Republicans have tried to make it look as if John Kerry has here a position or there a position. I've had one position steady all the way, folks [sic]. That I thought we ought to stand up and hold Saddam Hussein accountable and I thought we ought to do it the right way, and doing it the right way means having the patience and the maturity to bring allies to our side, to go through diplomacy to recognize that the United States of America is strongest when we are standing with the rest of the world in a legitimate cause, and that is what we need to do."

Two points there. 1. He's always held the same position. 2. We shouldn't do anything without lots of allies.

And of course we've heard him join in the Bush-lied-about-WMD throng.

Before I post the good stuff, I can't resist pointing something out. In WW2 the U.S. had seven allies. In the coalition against Iraq, the U.S. has nineteen allies. I still can't figure out why France and Germany disagreeing with us makes it a unilateral move.

Anyway, on to the good stuff from Kerry. It's from the Congressional Record, November 9th, 1997: Kerry gave a speech of his own free will on the floor of the U.S. Senate that was entered into the Congressional Record with the title, 'We must be firm with Saddam Hussein.' In the speech, Kerry not only laid out the case for aggressive military action against Saddam, he cited Saddam's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction as the main rationale for action. You want to see what he said?

Kerry said, "We must recognize that there is no education that Saddam Hussein has any intention of relenting so we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations. He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council or certainly in this nation. If he remains obdurate, I believe the UN must take and should authorize immediately whatever steps are necessary to force him to relent and that the United States should support and participate in those steps."

See that? There should be no debate! We should just move in!

Kerry then went on to argue that the threat posed by Saddam was so grave and so real, the U.S. should act unilaterally, if necessary. Here's what he said: "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 in 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. I believe this is such a situation, Mr. President. It is time for resolve. Tomorrow we must make that clear to the Security Council and to the world. I yield back the balance of my time." --John Kerry, 1997, for unilateral action against Saddam, to get rid of weapons of mass destruction.

Devil's Advocate · Post by **Devil's Advocate** » Wed Sep 29, 2004 6:39 am

ElfDude wrote: There should be no debate! We should just move in!

He didn't say that in any of your quotes. And no amount of reading between the lines can lead to the conclusion that he meant that.

ElfDude · Post by **ElfDude** » Wed Sep 29, 2004 6:54 am

Devil's Advocate wrote:
ElfDude wrote: There should be no debate! We should just move in!
He didn't say that in any of your quotes. And no amount of reading between the lines can lead to the conclusion that he meant that.

Let's look again. "This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council or certainly in this nation. "

"He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction."

"...must take and should authorize immediately whatever steps are necessary to force him to relent..."

Looks pretty obvious to me. And it is inarguable that this is 180? out of phase with his campaign rhetoric of the last couple of weeks.

And when we see him accusing republicans of unjustly accusing him of flip-flopping, that statement is downright laughable.

If you want to see and hear a whole lot of his contradictions condensed into a few minutes, check out the movie at www.kerryoniraq.com. There is no narrator... no breathless tones trying to help you draw sinister conclusions... just clips of Kerry both emphatically in favor of, and in opposition to the invasion of Iraq.

Devil's Advocate · Post by **Devil's Advocate** » Wed Sep 29, 2004 8:29 am

ElfDude wrote:
Devil's Advocate wrote:
ElfDude wrote: There should be no debate! We should just move in!
He didn't say that in any of your quotes. And no amount of reading between the lines can lead to the conclusion that he meant that.
Let's look again. "This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council or certainly in this nation. "

Okay, but in context it's clear that he meant "disagreement," i.e that there should be consensus in the SC.

"He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction."

"...must take and should authorize immediately whatever steps are necessary to force him to relent..."

Again, the context makes it clear that he's talking about the UN "must take ... whatever steps are necessary."

This is entirely consistent with what you quote him as saying yesterday.

ElfDude · Post by **ElfDude** » Wed Sep 29, 2004 8:47 am

You're a FUNNY GUY, man!

ElfDude · Post by **ElfDude** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 2:20 pm

CNSNews.com Publishes Iraqi Intelligence Docs

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?P ... 1011a.html

CygnusX1 · Post by **CygnusX1** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:05 am

NEWS FLASH!!!

WMD FOUND!!! Watch the news people...Did someone say LIES???

Hmmm.....I just WONDER.....Are those (who doubted it--and called people LIARS) gonna apologize now? AH.....Probably not....It is what it is...a witch hunt....but that's SO over now....I'm glad they found them....

now maybe we can put the issue to rest, and those who threw stones can go back to hugging trees...

Devil's Advocate · Post by **Devil's Advocate** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:31 am

I just checked the news, and there's no mention of WMD in Iraq.

In fact, for a change there's no mention of Iraq at all on the BBC News home page.

CygnusX1 · Post by **CygnusX1** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:54 am

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

Read this, and stop watching BBC!!

Soup4Rush · Post by **Soup4Rush** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:47 am

The LBC err I mean the BBC would never print a story like that.

Walkinghairball · Post by **Walkinghairball** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:04 am

I'm surprised OUR media did print that article.

More surprised they didn't say that Cindy Sheehan found them at a good ol boy's Crawford Texas ranch.

Soup4Rush · Post by **Soup4Rush** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:12 am

Thats Foxnews. The media for the right. <-- notice the double meaning of right.

CygnusX1 · Post by **CygnusX1** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:13 am

Can you believe the liberal mouthpiece on that show split hairs--by debating the DATE the stuff was made? WHAT THE HELL DIFFERENCE DOES THAT MAKE??? huh? what?

They FOUND IT, IT'S THERE...End of story

ElfDude · Post by **ElfDude** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:34 am

The strongest argument against this story having any real meaning is that all of the caches were pre-1991 and were not ready to immediately be used in combat.

However, I see a few strong points in this story:

1. Saddam claimed that all of this stuff (sarin, mustard gas, etc.) had all been destroyed in compliance with the earliest U.N. resolutions. We now have the proof that he was lying and that all the U.N. resolutions were valid, right up to the invasion.

2. The U.N. inspectors couldn't find it and claimed it wasn't there ("Bush lied! People died!"). It is now illustrated to us that U.N. inspectors are NOT infallible (or were possibly on the take, like so much of the rest of the U.N., right up to the top).

3. Though this stuff was not combat-ready, were it to fall into the hands of terrorists it could easily be refurbished and used against the freedom-loving world. But we got to it first and denied the Islamo-facist terrorists the use of it.

The coalition's presence in Iraq has meaning and really is helping to protect us.

awip2062 · Post by **awip2062** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:54 am

This will never make the mainstream. The majority of people will never hear of it.