Breaking News: Kerry Says He Wouldn't Have Ousted Saddam

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=3&u=/ap/20040920/ap_on_el_pr/politics_of_iraq
from JoeUser Forums
From Yahoo News:
NEW YORK - Staking out new ground on Iraq, Sen. John Kerry suggested Monday that he would not have overthrown Saddam Hussein had he known what he knows now, and accused President Bush of "stubborn incompetence," dishonesty and colossal failures of judgment. Bush said Kerry was flip-flopping.
Daring or disastrous? I have no idea.

What do you think, JoeUsers?
politics
48,227 views 26 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Flip flopping.. yes. Honest answer this time... yes. Right answer... yes. Daring... yes because by stating his true belief he leaves himself open for attack for making a false stamente before.
Reply #2 from PolMach Forums Top
Saddam was such a kind and loving dictator who was a MAN of the people, who lived no better than his citizens. Saddam should when the Nobel Peace Prize for all the Humanitarian action he has taken in Iraq. (End Sarcasm)
Elemental: Reforged
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top
Bush has several stock answers. "9/11" "I'm a compassionate conservative" and "flip flop" are the top three.

No Saddam wasn't good. But neither is King Fahd or Kim Jong IL. Don't give me that crap. Hell, if taking out evil dictators was such a big deal for Bush, he should have just invaded Cuba. It's a lot closer.
Reply #4 from PolMach Forums Top
I think that when the Bush camp calls Kerry a "flip-flopper," they are truly calling him "one who is not afraid to admit he is wrong." So what if Kerry changed his mind about Iraq. I prefer a leader that does not invade a country simply because he doesn't want to change his mind. It is infinately better to have a leader who admits when he is wrong and works to rights things, especially if national security is at stake.
Reply #5 from PolMach Forums Top
he should have just invaded Cuba. It's a lot closer.


Come on that is not even a fair fight, not to mention since when does anybody fear the Cuban Military invading or attacking the US or supporting people who attack the US. Fidel is not a idiot, he has not supported jack since Russia left Cuba.

Reply #6 from PolMach Forums Top
It is infinately better to have a leader who admits when he is wrong and works to rights things, especially if national security is at stake.


US / Mexico Border.
Reply #7 from PolMach Forums Top
US / Mexico Border.


Agred, ShoZan, I think this is a red-hot issue that neither candidate wants to touch. The Canadian border as well, but the US/Mexico border is the biggest weakness we have. I'm not anti-immigration, but I work for a school in an area of Arkansas that has a lot of poultry processing in the area -- and it's really tough to get these poor kids figured out sometimes -- they don't have any sort of documentation at all. Generally, these are hard-working kids, and I love having them as a part of my school -- but a border this porous could let anyone in, and not just to make a few Tyson chicken products. I'm not anti-immigration at all, but I do worry that our border with Mexico could be a future gateway to terrorists. It's got to be something we address, the status quo isn't going to hold here.
Reply #8 from PolMach Forums Top
Hey I don't care about South Americans or Mexicans coming across, probably because I am Hispanic (P.R.). What I do have a problem with is that terrorists could come across that border and nobody is really checking for them.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
George Bush's Stock answers include And Iraqi war is just that, a war with Iraq. It means that we are at war with Iraq, to create war with Iraq for the purpose of creating war with iraq. 9/11. September 11th. Kerry. Flipflop. Osama bin husien. I mean saddam bin laden. I mean Osama bin laden.
Reply #10 from PolMach Forums Top
I would like to hear an Iraqi citizen's opinion on this.
Reply #11 from PolMach Forums Top
It is very sad when more Iraqi justified this war than American. What the hell is wrong with the left? The left keep on talking about humanitrate issue. Damn it. The previous oil sanction killed 5000 Iraqi children under 5 every MONTH, according to UN its own source. This does not even include what Saddam did.
The worse estimate I read on Iraqi civilian causlties in this war is a total of 8000. If you do the math, by going to war, if only we end the oil sanction earlier for two months. It is worthy from a humanitarian point of view. Go look at the death rate in Iraq has been dropping
Link
Instead of asking why I support the war to kill Iraqi, why don't you tell me why you are for an oil sanction which kill more Iraqi? Why do you want to starve Iraqi to death? Why? If you are a true liberal, you should be glad for the invasion.

In term of Iraqi opinion... more Iraqi justified this war than not. "More Iraqis (49%) still believe that the coalition invasion was right compared to those (39%) who thought it was wrong."
Link
Iraqi was living in hellhole before the war. Why else any Iraqi will justified a war on their own country. You can't even find that in Nazi German and Imperial Japan. Those citizens love their government. The choice to wage war on Saddam was never between an invarsion and some happy/nice alternative. It was between a war and a oil sanction which is far worse. It was between invasion and letting Saddam kills his own people.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Senate Hearings on C-Span Predicted this
I know that it is no secret that invading Iraq without massive international support and a plan to stabalize it afterwards would be doomed to fail. I saw Senate hearings aired on C-Span long before Bush plunged us into this mess in which experts on middle-east affairs predicted that without the above mentioned, along with a ready trained police force and at least one Trillion dollars in ready cash for re-construction, that any invasion would leave a huge power vacum in Iraq, which would lead to a civil war between the differing factions of Iraq and surrounding Arab countries with more than a passing interest in who controls the place after Sadam.

Of course, far be it for me to expect my President to follow Senate hearings any more than I would expect him to read his own PDB, or for that matter, listen to the outgoing administrations dire warnings. Odd how the Bush administration is critical of John Kerry "flip-flopping" on Iraq, when he did what they asked in the first place and backed Bush. Which is worse: changing your mind about supporting the President when you learn that he lied to you and the rest of the American people about WMDs, or using the most powerful office in the world to settle a grudge against your dad and make your oil buddies filthty rich in the process?

There is an excellent book called "Had Enough?" by James Carville (who came up with "it's the economy stupid" which takes a serious (and sometimes humurous) look at what a true "flip-flopper" Bush is, but more importantly, Carville offers some really dynamic and realistic ideas on how to fix the mess that Bush has gotten us into, not just Iraq, but the economy, health care, education, and a few other issues as well. It is written so that anyone with a third grade education can understand it.....so we need not worry about anyone in the Bush white house actually reading it and stealing any of the great ideas he puts forth.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
why don't you tell me why you are for an oil sanction which kill more Iraqi?


Who exactly is it that supported the sanctions? Most people who protested the war protested the sanctions. Did we have to go to war to stop the sanctions? Wasn't it possible to fix the sanctions so half a million children did not die.

Do you support the bombs that were used to kill innocent people? There are many Iraqis that despise the United States who had nothing to do with terrorism and who will always hate the United States. Do they support the war? I also thought the reason the USA went to war was because Saddam was a threat, not to nation build.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
They went in too early. Saddam is not immortal, he would have died sooner or later. WIth his death, infighting would have begun and that would've been a good time to invade, especially seeing that no WMDs were found nor a connection between Saddam and international terrorist groups (not a surprise there, Saddam was hardly interested in their endavours and vice-versa, just look at his past history for Christ's sake). Whatever the reasons for invading Iraq really were, the bottom line, in my opinion is that it happened way too early and on the backbone of terrorism phobia.
Reply #16 from PolMach Forums Top
Saddam is not immortal, he would have died sooner or later.


*laugh*

We've been saying the same thing about Castro for decades. I'm beginning to think Ponce De Leon should have been looking for that fountain of youth in Cuba, not Florida.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is an excellent book called "Had Enough?" by James Carville (who came up with "it's the economy stupid" which takes a serious (and sometimes humurous) look at what a true "flip-flopper" Bush is, but more importantly, Carville offers some really dynamic and realistic ideas on how to fix the mess that Bush has gotten us into, not just Iraq, but the economy, health care, education, and a few other issues as well. It is written so that anyone with a third grade education can understand it.....so we need not worry about anyone in the Bush white house actually reading it and stealing any of the great ideas he puts forth


There's another excellent book out called Unfit for command. You "really" should read it too. If for nothing else but to hear "both" sides of the story!
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
We've been saying the same thing about Castro for decades.


True, but while he's alive, the situation is more or less stable and even so, Cuba is hardly a threat these days. Neither really was Iraq, while Saddam was in power. A threat to its own citizens, that goes without saying, but I hardly believe he was a threat to the whole wide world. Alas, if Iraq was invaded because the dictator was oppressing his citizens, why haven't the coalition forces gone in a decade or two ago?
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #18 By: Mack/N.G.E. - 9/21/2004 8:34:26 AM
We've been saying the same thing about Castro for decades.


True, but while he's alive, the situation is more or less stable and even so, Cuba is hardly a threat these days. Neither really was Iraq, while Saddam was in power. A threat to its own citizens, that goes without saying, but I hardly believe he was a threat to the whole wide world. Alas, if Iraq was invaded because the dictator was oppressing his citizens, why haven't the coalition forces gone in a decade or two ago?


Because up until lately (past 10 years) he didn't have the infrastructure to support WMD's. Before he lost power, the infrastructure was in place to do just that.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
They went in too early


Actually, I'd say they went in too late. Finish the job in 1991, invade when the kurds or southern Shias were gassed or even invade in 1998 when the weapon inspectors were evicted would have been right moments, with clear and obvious reasons for invasion. Problem now is that people really do not know why the US invaded anymore. I can understand anyone saying they would not have invaded without a clear cause.

Paul.
Reply #21 from PolMach Forums Top
John Kerry addressing congress before Iraq 2:
"We must recognize that there is no indication 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 that the United Nations 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.
...
Should the resolve of our allies wane to pursue this matter until an acceptable inspection process has been reinstituted — which I hope will not occur and which I am pleased to say at this moment does not seem to have even begun — the United States must not lose its resolve to take action
...
To date, there have been nine material breaches by Iraq of U.N. requirements.
...
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.

I believe this is such a situation, Mr. President. "
LINK TO FULL TEXTLink

Later, in 2002 (still before Iraq2):
"...With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?

Does he do all of these things because he wants to live by international standards of behavior? Because he respects international law? Because he is a nice guy underneath it all and the world should trust him?

It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it. He has already created a stunning track record of miscalculation...."
LINK=Link

Dec. 15, 2003 he said: "Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror."

July 29, 2002:
"I agree completely with this administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq – Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw ..."

Kerry now claims the decision to go into Iraq was a "colossal" failure. Yet on Aug. 9, 2004, Kerry said that had he known then what he knew now, he would still have voted for the use-of-force resolution, according to CNN:
"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."

Kerry now claims Saddam was not a "threat to our security." Here's what he said in January 2003, according to the L.A. Times: "If you don't believe ... Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."

AND MY FAVORITE!!!::: December 2003, according to Newsday:
Kerry says,"Those who doubt whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not safer with his capture, don’t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
No Saddam wasn't good. But neither is King Fahd or Kim Jong IL. Don't give me that crap. Hell, if taking out evil dictators was such a big deal for Bush, he should have just invaded Cuba. It's a lot closer.


Oh please....talk about a load of crap! So if he can't get them all, Bush should just put on blinders?!
How about murderers in our own country - if the police can't get them all (every single one of them) should we then leave the rest alone?[

I think that when the Bush camp calls Kerry a "flip-flopper," they are truly calling him "one who is not afraid to admit he is wrong." So what if Kerry changed his mind about Iraq. I prefer a leader that does not invade a country simply because he doesn't want to change his mind. It is infinately better to have a leader who admits when he is wrong and works to rights things, especially if national security is at stake


I could buy into this if Kerry had not taken every position possible on this issue and come full circle more than once. I have listened to all of his positions on Iraq dating back to 1998. He was FOR removing Saddam until he saw how much mileage Howard Dean was getting with his anti-war position so he went anti-war. Then last month he said he would still vote to authorize force to remove Saddam. Now (AGAIN) he says he would not have removed Saddam (David Letterman show) I sometimes wonder if Kerry realizes that cameras are rolling and mics are on when he speaks?
Reply #23 from PolMach Forums Top
I sometimes wonder if Kerry realizes that cameras are rolling and mics are on when he speaks?


He knows it. He is trusting in the ignorance of the masses. He trusts that sound bytes matter and track records don't. He trusts in an emotionally charged voter motivated and blinded by irrational hatred of Bush. Any time someone hears him say one thing they like - that provides enough reason to focus their Bush-Hate and vote Kerry. No matter that he contradicts himself the day before and the day after.

"A blinded and dependent public" isn't that the stated platform of the Democratic party?
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
he would not have overthrown Saddam Hussein had he known what he knows now


So, Kerry would make a decision on something if he could travel into the future and see the outcome of it?
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Please check some relevant pages in the field of card credit offer | card credit offer | http://www.card-credit-offer-4u.info/ | skiing | skiing | http://www.skiing-e-mall.info/ | credit federal navy union | credit federal navy union | http://www.credit-federal-navy-union-4u.info/ | Discover card com | Discover card com | http://www.Discover-card-com-4u.info/ | online flower | online flower | http://www.online-flower-leading-site.info/ | credit card consolidation | credit card consolidation | http://www.credit-card-consolidation-advisor.info/ | dvd | dvd | http://www.dvd-top-shop.info/ | amortization loan | amortization loan | http://www.amortization-loan-e-bank.info/ | second mortgage | second mortgage | http://www.second-mortgage-ebanking.info/ | personal loans bad credit | personal loans bad credit | http://www.personal-loans-bad-credit-ebanking.info/ | loan unsecured | loan unsecured | http://www.loan-unsecured-4u.info/ | debt cancellation | debt cancellation | http://www.debt-cancellation-consultant.info/ | ...