O G San

John Kerry: Liar or Fool?

▼

John Kerry: Liar or Fool?

from JoeUser Forums
If we are to believe Senator John Kerry’s version of events, he was duped into voting for the Iraq war by nefarious White House lies about Saddam’s WMD capability. The 61 year old veteran politician was led a merry dance with tales of mushroom clouds and nerve gas. Now, like a freshly deflowered teenager, he’s discovered that his suitor lied to get him into bed. There weren’t any WMD after all! Oh, George, how could you?!

John Kerry claims that he was one of the people who actually believed that Iraqi weapons posed a threat to the US. Those who opposed the war knew all along that Bush’s absurd rhetoric was just a cover for a war which his cronies had been planning for years. Even many who supported the war knew they were being lied to, they wanted invasion for reasons other than WMD. But poor old John Kerry, one of the few true believers, feels so used.

Of course there’s another explanation for Kerry’s actions. It could be that he knew all along he was being lied to. It could be that he saw voting for conflict in 2002 as the most expedient option. Then, when the war went sour in 2003, he “discovered” that he’d been duped.

Either way Kerry doesn’t come out looking good. Either he is a naïve fool or a calculated liar. Is there any other explanation?
politics
20,832 views 27 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
The point about the invasion of Iraq is that Bush was in such a rush to go to war based on an "imminent threat" and had little interest in building a truly international coalition that would share the financial and military burden of the invasion.


First of all, Bush never said Saddam was an imminent threat. He said he could become one.

Looking back at foreign policy from 20 years ago, it is easy to see how we allowed the problems of today to develop, but you have to remember the situation at the time. We armed Bin Laden to hold back the Soviets, which at the time we saw as an enormous threat. We helped Saddam because we didn't like Iran. It all made sense at the time.

My reason for supporting Iraq was always humanitarian, and WMD's (which I still support and believe in by the way, I've posted reasons why a million times so I'd rather not again, if you want to start that argument with me go ahead). I think people were stupid for not using humanitarian issues right away as a big issue. I recently saw a show on the History Channel about Iraq. They were focusing on photographers that were there, and they showed pictures of people looking down manholes in the streets looking for loved ones Saddam had taken. They also had pictures of hundreds of dead bodies that were in mass graves. It really fortified in my mind that while the stated reasons for going in have not yet been validated, we certainly did a good thing.

On the subject of WMD delivery. There are several nonconventional methods that could be used by a government to deliver a WMD. Even if Saddam couldn't reach the US with his missiles, there are many (European) countries that may have been in his range.
Star Control: Origins