Sure lob a few cruise missles in. Very effective.<br><br>Why didn't we take care of those suspected WMD site because the Bush admin made that evidence up out of the blue in the oval office. They were lying about that stuff. Colin Powell lied right in fron of the entire UN. They knew full well there were never and WMDs. That's why. <br><br>Yes, assainate Saddam against policy at that point. I'm sure that is what Kerry was suggesting. That would have stopped the entire threat from Iraq because we all knwo terrorist organizations fall apart and never do anything again if you just take out the leader. again.<br><br>I think you mis-understand Kerry. He says what is popular at the time. Being tough against Saddam was popular in 97. Being anti-war he thinks is popular now. <br><br>"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." -- John Kerry (D) - CNN Crossfire, 1997
Loc: Alexandria, VA
You're missing the point, which is that using an open-ended catch all like "acting preemptively" keeps your options open down the road -- leaves you able to adapt to developing situations and respond accordingly. Whether or not you think those options would have been appropriate or not is beside the point. I seriously doubt Kerry had *anything* specifically in mind when he made those statements in 1997; he was making a generalized statement, not offering a specific set of actions to respond to a specific set of circumstances ...<br><br>As for him saying what is popular at the time, all politicians do this to a certain extent. Kerry is no better or worse at this than any other politician, including his opponent in this election ...<br><br>And just BTW, Kerry isn't anti-war, he's ant-Bush's-war ... the way the US went into this war and the way its aftermath is being handled. He has as much said that going after Saddam with an invasion would have been appropriate under certain circumstances -- making a blanket statement that he is anti-war seems incredibly inaccurate to me ...<br><br>=)<br><br>***matt<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>And just BTW, Kerry isn't anti-war, he's ant-Bush's-war<p><hr></blockquote><p>(paraphrasing the quotes below)<br>"Wrong war, wrong time"<br>"If I had been in the Whitehouse I would not have invaded."<br>"Iraq was not a threat" (which is a total flip-flop).<br><br>He has no believe in the mission and purpose of Iraq. He thinks Saddam should still be in power (not that he wants him in power or would LIKE him in power) but if we had done what he wanted Saddam would be in charge of Iraq right now.<br>He insults the Prime-minister of Iraq while he is a guest in our country.<br>I have not one iota of confidence that he has any willingness to stay in Iraq. Why should I expect him to support an effort he has no belief in?<br><br><br>"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." -- John Kerry (D) - CNN Crossfire, 1997
Loc: Alexandria, VA
[color:blue]"Wrong war, wrong time"</font color=blue><br><br>Yep. Isn't that what I said? Kerry thinks Bush went in in the wrong way at the wrong time under the wrong circumstances ...<br><br>[color:blue]"If I had been in the Whitehouse I would not have invaded."</font color=blue><br><br>And taken in context of the rest of those speeches, you would have to add: "Under the same circumstances and in the same way Bush did" ...<br><br>[color:blue]"Iraq was not a threat" (which is a total flip-flop).</font color=blue><br><br>A total flip-flop from when? He said at the time of the vote authorizing force he believed Iraq was a threat. Looking back in hindsight with the evidence we have now, he doesn't believe it was a threat after all -- at least, not one requiring a rushed and ill-prepared invasion and occupation to address ... Knowing what we know now, he says he wouldn't have done things the same way as Bush ... where's the "flip-flop"?<br><br>[color:blue]Why should I expect him to support an effort he has no belief in?</font color=blue><br><br>Because he has no choice -- Bush has committed whoever is in the White House for the next two or three administrations (hopefully that few) to follow through with the attempt to rebuild Iraq or face disastrous consequences ... Kerry knows this as well as anybody else and has said as much. I agree that he has no belief in the way things are being handled now, and I do doubt that he would stay the same course as Bush -- but I also don't see where Kerry would simply cut and run as you appear to imply here ... from what I've read and heard, he realizes the value of a stable Iraq and is committed to achieving that goal -- just not the same way George is trying it ...<br><br><br><br>In reading my recent posts here I realize that I probably sound like an ardent Kerry supporter, while the truth is that in any other election, I probably would be voting third-party (again ;-), or even considering voting Republican if somebody like McCain was running. I actually have ambivalent feelings about Kerry as a candidate and will only grudgingly vote for him (probably) because I find the status quo even more distasteful ...<br><br>My main beef is with the inane sound-bite mischaracterizations of the candidates and their positions, and the cherry-picking of quotes out of context ... and since to me the Republican campaign is more egregious than that of Kerry in this regard I end-up essentially defending the guy more often than I would like ...<br><br>I REALLY wish we had better candidates and campaigns these days -- this election cycle is very depressing =P<br><br>Anyways, I just wanted to get that out ...<br><br>[/edit]<br><br>***matt<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by six_of_one on 09/25/04 07:31 AM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Will Hannity or Drudge offer a retraction or an apology? Nope, Hannity will keep repeating the misquote over and over....<br><br><br>Washington Times's McCaslin Smeared Kerry with Misquote of 1997 Statement on Iraq<br><br><br>WASHINGTON, Sept. 24 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Washington Times columnist John McCaslin falsely claimed in his Sept. 24 "Inside the Beltway" column that, while appearing on a 1997 edition of CNN's Crossfire, Senator John Kerry advocated a unilateral and preemptive attack on Iraq. McCaslin claimed that Kerry said: "We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians. ...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."<br><br>The Drudge Report posted a link to McCaslin's false Washington Times report: "Kerry Argued Case For Unilateral Preemptive Action In Iraq On CNN's CROSSFIRE In 1997..."<br><br>McCaslin's column claimed that "no 'Crossfire' transcripts from 1997 are available," but Kerry's opponent on the debate show, New York Republican congressman Peter King, "produced a tape of the show" revealing the quotation. McCaslin's claim that Crossfire transcripts from 1997 aren't available, though, does not hold up to the most basic test. Crossfire transcripts are available on Nexis -- a basic research tool -- dating back to 1990. McCaslin has worked as a news director of three radio stations, correspondent for United Press International and NBC Radio and is in his 20th year with The Washington Times, where he has served as assistant national editor, deputy metropolitan editor, and metro editor. And he failed to check the Nexis database?<br><br>Not only is that Crossfire transcript available, but it reveals that McCaslin flatly misquoted Kerry. Kerry expressed frustration with French, Russian, and Chinese policies, but stood firm on a multilateral effort: "I don't think anybody can deny that we would have liked it to have threatened force and we would have liked it to carry the term serious consequences will flow. On the other hand, the coalition is together." Furthermore, he did not advocate taking "pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest." Rather, Kerry said that the United States "will reserve the right to act in its best interests" when there is a "finding of material breach."<br><br>full story with Crossfire transcript link<br><br><br><br><br>
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.