Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Is Kerry's criticism inconsistent?

Politicians John Kerry 2003 Election 2004

  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 20 June 2003 - 11:40 AM

Found this at the Drudge Report:

http://www.drudgereport.com/kerry6.htm

Summary:

Quote

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU JUNEL 19, 2003 13:02:58 ET XXXXX

Kerry 2003: Bush Misled Americans On War; Kerry 1997: Warned Of Saddam Nuclear And Biological Capabilities

In New Hampshire yesterday, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said President Bush broke his promise to build an international coalition against Iraq's Saddam Hussein and then waged a war based on questionable intelligence.

But 5 years ago, Sen. Kerry seemed to warn of Saddam's nuclear and biological capabilities as he argued the U.S. must do what it has to do, with or without other nations!

The last quote is particularly telling:

Quote

"[W]hile 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."  (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

Well, for once, a democratic candidate is in the news. Is Kerry being fair?
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#2 GiGi

GiGi

    Lipstick wearing PIG kisser!

  • Islander
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 20 June 2003 - 12:16 PM

Heh, for once a Democrate in the news... you mean the news you listen to.  Matt Drudge, indeed, his name says it all.

Don't mean any disrespect to you Rov, but anyone on one extreme or the other will always color things in a certain light, so we get the truth, a half truth that is... and that goes for liberals too.
"Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do all creatures." -- HH The Dalai Lama

#3 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 20 June 2003 - 12:19 PM

Quote

Heh, for once a Democrate in the news... you mean the news you listen to.  Matt Drudge, indeed, his name says it all.

Not at all. ;). What I meant was that this story has done a better job of penetrating the mass media than any story in weeks. No matter how 'significiant' something is, it won't have any impact on most people unless it's widely reported. I've been following the democratic primary race with great interest.

Quote

Don't mean any disrespect to you Rov, but anyone on one extreme or the other will always color things in a certain light, so we get the truth, a half truth that is... and that goes for liberals too.

Very true.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#4 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 20 June 2003 - 12:47 PM

I just find it odd who 5 years ago when good ol' Bill was the guy in office it was a priority that this be done.

Then they lose the run for the white house and suddenly Saddam has the rights the democrats were not going to allow him to have while they had power.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#5 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 20 June 2003 - 01:08 PM

Drudge…. Hhhmmmppphhhh  Well when he gets it right he gets it way right.  The problem is probably only 30 to 40% of his stuff is accurate.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#6 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 20 June 2003 - 10:25 PM

Chiron wrote:

Don't mean any disrespect to you Rov, but anyone on one extreme or the other will always color things in a certain light, so we get the truth, a half truth that is... and that goes for liberals too.

I went to the link to Drudge's story, all he did was go read the Congressional Record of 1997. Doesn't seem to me to be coloring any half-truths if you can read Kerry's remarks unedited from the news story itself.

Bottom line is that Kerry isn't alone in this, he and the rest of the Democrat leadership were convinced by our intelligence that Saddam had this WMDs, they said so in speech after speech during the final years of the Clinton Administration. Now these same Democrats, who were convinced by their intelligence briefings under the previous president, piously claim that the current president lied to them.

What is it that changed in our intelligence on Iraq from 1997 to 2003, aside from a change in president? The answer is, none at all. This sort of partisan posturing is a prime reason why Kerry and the rest will lose big in 2004. This will be fun!

Edited by Ogami, 20 June 2003 - 10:27 PM.


#7 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 21 June 2003 - 12:06 AM

Ogami, on Jun 20 2003, 05:26 AM, said:

What is it that changed in our intelligence on Iraq from 1997 to 2003, aside from a change in president? The answer is, none at all.
That's not quite true. Now we know about modified spray planes, have detected WMD materials dumped in a river, and have our hands on some trailers that were used to produce biological weapons in hiding from the UN's inspectors...

#8 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 21 June 2003 - 12:17 AM

Yes, but that's empirical proof, evidence our troops discovered. Kerry is attacking Bush for lying about our intelligence on Iraq before the war. It's the same intelligence he believed with all of his heart in 1997, 1998, and beyond. What is it that changed that induces Kerry to now say it's a lie? The question is, was he lied to in 1998 by Bill Clinton?

As one National Review columnist observed, if two presidential administrations lied about Iraq, then the only one who told the truth was Saddam Hussein. Kerry's charge alone proves he's unfit to be president, it's simple desperation by a wannabe trying to separate himself from the pack.

-Ogami



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Politicians, John Kerry, 2003, Election 2004

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users