Kerry wanted an attack on Iraq even before Bush was elected.

from PolMach Forums
During a 1997 debate on CNN's "Crossfire," Sen. John Kerry, now the Democratic presidential nominee, made the case for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq.

So reveals Rep. Peter King, New York Republican, who appeared with Mr. Kerry on the program.

Mr. King says the U.N. Security Council had just adopted a resolution against Iraq that was watered down at the behest of the French and the Russians. Yet the candidate who now criticizes President Bush for ignoring French and Russian objections to the Iraq war blasted the two countries, claiming that they were compromised by their business dealings with Baghdad.

"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians," said Mr. Kerry. "We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."

While no "Crossfire" transcripts from 1997 are available, Mr. King in recent days produced a tape of the show, sharing it with New York radio host Monica Crowley for broadcast, and this Inside the Beltway column for publication. Stay tuned.

Washington Times, By John McCaslin

Just one more change in Kerry's the Political Sail.
politics
2,502 views 3 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Kerry has a history of strong commentary, but times change: it is irrelevant to invoke the past congressional resolution to oust Saddam and the  UN resolution to the current situation. "preemptive" strikes in those days meant what Clinton was doing when he launched attacks, in which incidentally French air force participated. 
Reply #2 from PolMach Forums Top
Yes, too bad a leader does not have the luzury of Monday Morning Quarterbacking in reality. Decisions must be made in real time.

Kerry has told us how he would have handled things back then. If he had been in power - and done as he said he wanted at the time, then changed his mind in the last few weeks - how do you figure that would work out?

I'll tell you one thing, we would see a mas exodus from the military. Have you ever worked for a boss that kept changing the plan? That refused you the equipment you needed to do a good job and do it safely? Who refused you the raise you deserved and kept you grossly behind the times as far as pay goes? That is the kind of job people flee. We will need a draft just to patrol our own shores under Kerry. Under Bush, recruitment has been setting records and war-time retention is as high or higher than it has been during any major conflict.

"preemptive" strikes in those days meant what Clinton was doing when he launched attacks, in which incidentally French air force participated


... and that was very effective wasn't it? Are we to follow the French lead like some kind of poodle? That is irrelevant. Are you also claiming that what Kerry meant was that we should just keep doing what has failed in the past? If so, I think the Senator would disagree with you about that. As he would also not say that we should only do things that the French approve of. Even he has more sense than that.

The sad truth is: He is a politician. He'll say what is popular and do what the polls say he should do. The biggest problem with that is - major policies and goals change week to week. Not much can be accomplished like that because he cannot be relied upon to stay the course. If he says, "Of course I will protect you, we are allies after all." but the polls say NO - then our "ally" is hung out to dry. And that is no way to lead.

Not that he would lead. His attendence record is abysmal. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee he attended only 1 in 6 meetings after the 1st World Trade Center bombing. This last Congressional Session he attended only 1 in 4 votes. Not the kind of guy I would hire - let alone want running the show.

I sure wish the Dems fielded a more stable candidate. There are a lot of faults that could be overlooked - like Dean's over-enthusiastic antics. Or Clinton's philandering. But Kerry, I just cannot abide. His faults are far too serious and relevant to the Commander in Cheif possition. He would be a supreme liability. (In all fairness I do agree with 1 or 2 things in his platform and those, he has hardly waffled on at all but that is not enough. Not by a long shot when I look at all the likely problems he will create.)

One of my employees gave me a new T-Shirt today. It looks just like the Kerry/Edwards '04 logo - like you see on yard signs and bumper stickers but the text reads, "I actually voted for John Kerry before I voted against him."
Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
All the Dems are like this now, though; they see a chance to attack a president they dislike. So, in an effort to distance themselves from something they now see as a mistake, they conveniently forget their own past hawkish words, actions and deeds concerning Iraq.
"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Literally.