nbdysfu
Member
- Nov 17, 2003
- 829
- 29
- 16
**Um, Kerry I mean. **
WHAT KERRY SAID
Tue Feb 10, 4:00 AM ET Add Op/Ed - New York Post to My Yahoo!
Democratic front-runner John Kerry (news - web sites)'s response to President Bush (news - web sites)'s "Meet the Press" interview Sunday was as predictable as it was disingenuous.
"It appears that he was telling the American people stories in 2002," said the junior senator from Massachusetts.
"Back then, President Bush repeatedly told the American people that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) 'has got chemical weapons.' . . . And it was on that basis that he sent American sons and daughters off to war."
Yes, that's what George W. Bush was telling the American people.
Then again, so was John Kerry.
In a lengthy speech on the Senate floor on Oct. 9, 2002, Kerry declared that "in the four years since UNSCOM inspectors were forced out [of Iraq (news - web sites)], Saddam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction."
And not just his quest: Kerry told the Senate that Saddam "has chemical and biological weapons, as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 kilometers restriction imposed by the United Nations (news - web sites)."
Moreover, he said, "Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort over the last four years."
Then Kerry declared that "a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region."
And he added that "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."
Even the fact that the Bush administration hadn't conclusively linked Saddam directly to the events of 9/11 didn't matter to Kerry 16 months ago.
"Can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance?"
We don't.
Which is precisely what President Bush has been saying all along.
Clearly, John Kerry was convinced - indeed, his 2002 speech makes a compelling case for why military action against Saddam Hussein was necessary.
Now he's running for president, and seeking the support of the leftward-leaning Democratic primary electorate.
So anything goes.
But he would do well to re-read the speech before leveling additional charges against Bush. And making himself look even sillier than he already does.
:cof:
WHAT KERRY SAID
Tue Feb 10, 4:00 AM ET Add Op/Ed - New York Post to My Yahoo!
Democratic front-runner John Kerry (news - web sites)'s response to President Bush (news - web sites)'s "Meet the Press" interview Sunday was as predictable as it was disingenuous.
"It appears that he was telling the American people stories in 2002," said the junior senator from Massachusetts.
"Back then, President Bush repeatedly told the American people that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) 'has got chemical weapons.' . . . And it was on that basis that he sent American sons and daughters off to war."
Yes, that's what George W. Bush was telling the American people.
Then again, so was John Kerry.
In a lengthy speech on the Senate floor on Oct. 9, 2002, Kerry declared that "in the four years since UNSCOM inspectors were forced out [of Iraq (news - web sites)], Saddam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction."
And not just his quest: Kerry told the Senate that Saddam "has chemical and biological weapons, as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 kilometers restriction imposed by the United Nations (news - web sites)."
Moreover, he said, "Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort over the last four years."
Then Kerry declared that "a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region."
And he added that "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."
Even the fact that the Bush administration hadn't conclusively linked Saddam directly to the events of 9/11 didn't matter to Kerry 16 months ago.
"Can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance?"
We don't.
Which is precisely what President Bush has been saying all along.
Clearly, John Kerry was convinced - indeed, his 2002 speech makes a compelling case for why military action against Saddam Hussein was necessary.
Now he's running for president, and seeking the support of the leftward-leaning Democratic primary electorate.
So anything goes.
But he would do well to re-read the speech before leveling additional charges against Bush. And making himself look even sillier than he already does.
:cof:
:dance2: 
