Kerry vs Kerry debate video [Archive] - Professional Soldiers ®

Gypsy

10-01-2004, 16:01

This is perfect...link from DrudgeTop Ten Flip Flops of the first debate (http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=4775)

Eagle

Both of those are great links. From the above link:

TEN: Claimed “My Position Has Been Consistent: Saddam Hussein Is A Threat. He Needed To Be Disarmed.” (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

ü “Saying There Are Weapons Of Mass Destruction In Iraq Doesn’t Make It So.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks To Democrat National Convention, Boston, MA, 7/29/04)

ü “I Have Always Said We May Yet Even Find Weapons Of Mass Destruction.” (Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday,” 12/14/03)

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/october/1001_kerry_wmd.shtml

Here's something from as far back as 1997...
Kerry's '97 Speech Targets Saddam, Shows Changed Position on Iraq
By Steve Roeder
Talon News
October 1, 2004

WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- In a November 9, 1997 debate with Rep. Peter King (R-NY) on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) defined the reasons for significant, preemptive and potentially unilateral military action against Saddam Hussein. In the speech, Kerry named Hussein's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) as a major cause of threats to peace, security, and stability. Kerry contended that Hussein could not be allowed to continue to defy the U.N.'s will and their inspection process.

Kerry's speech is entered into the Congressional Record as "We Must Be Firm With Saddam Hussein." Ten days after Hussein kicked U.S. weapons inspectors out of Iraq on October 29, 1997, Kerry, on the U.S. Senate floor, firmly addressed the issue Hussein's defiance toward the inspections for WMDs.

"We must recognize that there is no indication that Saddam Hussein has any intention of relenting," Kerry said. "So we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations."

Kerry added, "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."

Kerry boldly argued that, while multilateral action was preferable, the threat posed by Saddam Hussein was enough to advocate unilateral U.S. military action.

"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," Kerry stated. "I believe this is such a situation, Mr. President. It is time for resolve."

Kerry called for the U.N. Security Council to pass a resolution that authorized a "strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes."

For the next five years, many negotiations took place, but little or no progress was made. Weapons inspectors, members of the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM), did not inspect any Iraqi locations until the Bush administration forced them back in November 2002.

During this time, unsuccessful attempts to address the threat of Hussein occurred. In September 1998, a U.N. Security Council resolution condemned Iraq's lack of cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Congress passed The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, making regime change in Iraq the official U.S. policy.

And in December of that year, the U.S. launched Operation Desert Fox, an abbreviated, minimally successful four-day bombing campaign against a select few military targets in Iraq. France, Russia, and China, permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, then wanted to lift the economic sanctions against Iraq and disband UNSCOM.

Now, in the post-9/11 world, Kerry argues the opposite of his 1997 presentation. He states that he opposed action against the threat presented by Hussein, although he voted for the president to have the authority to do so.

Kerry and most other Democrats accepted U.S. intelligence estimates of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq which have since been shown to be flawed, but now claim that President Bush has misled the nation with regard to Iraq and WMDs.

In March 2003, Kerry voted to authorize military action but accused Bush of rushing into war. He said he would cease his complaints once the shooting starts.

"It's what you owe the troops," said Kerry. "[I]f America is at war, I won't speak a word without measuring how it will sound to the guys doing the fighting when they're listening to their radios in the desert."

Only two weeks after the war started, Kerry broke that promise when he said, "What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States."

********

And only yesterday he said Iraq is "a mess". Obviously he doesn't have a frigging clue how that choice comment sounds.