Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

John Kerry's Statement on Iraq Before the War

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 07:00 PM
link   
In response to all those who repeat over and over that Bush lied, here is one statement made by Kerry regarding the possession and development of WMDs by Saddam.

Text from the Speech John Kerry Made on the Senate Floor
October 9, 2002



[...]
With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?

Does he do all of these things because he wants to live by international standards of behavior? Because he respects international law? Because he is a nice guy underneath it all and the world should trust him?

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. He has as much as promised it. He has already created a stunning track record of miscalculation. He miscalculated an 8-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's responses to it. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending Scuds into Israel. He miscalculated his own military might. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his plight. He miscalculated in attempting an assassination of a former President of the United States. And he is miscalculating now America's judgments about his miscalculations.

All those miscalculations are compounded by the rest of history. A brutal, oppressive dictator, guilty of personally murdering and condoning murder and torture, grotesque violence against women, execution of political opponents, a war criminal who used chemical weapons against another nation and, of course, as we know, against his own people, the Kurds. He has diverted funds from the Oil-for-Food program, intended by the international community to go to his own people. He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel.

I mention these not because they are a cause to go to war in and of themselves, as the President previously suggested, but because they tell a lot about the threat of the weapons of mass destruction and the nature of this man. We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future. It is the total of all of these acts that provided the foundation for the world's determination in 1991 at the end of the gulf war that Saddam Hussein must: unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless underinternational supervision of his chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems... [and] unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear weapon-usable material.

Saddam Hussein signed that agreement. Saddam Hussein is in office today because of that agreement. It is the only reason he survived in 1991. In 1991, the world collectively made a judgment that this man should not have weapons of mass destruction. And we are here today in the year 2002 with an uninspected 4-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them.

I believe the record of Saddam Hussein's ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior which is at the core of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if necessary. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons.

He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.

The Senate worked to urge action in early 1998. I joined with Senator McCain, Senator Hagel, and other Senators, in a resolution urging the President to "take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end his weapons of mass destruction program." That was 1998 that we thought we needed a more serious response.

Later in the year, Congress enacted legislation declaring Iraq in material, unacceptable breach of its disarmament obligations and urging the President to take appropriate action to bring Iraq into compliance. In fact, had we done so, President Bush could well have taken his office, backed by our sense of urgency about holding Saddam Hussein accountable and, with an international United Nations, backed a multilateral stamp of approval record on a clear demand for the disarmament of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. We could have had that and we would not be here debating this today. But the administration missed an opportunity 2 years ago and particularly a year ago after September 11. They regrettably, and even clumsily, complicated their own case. The events of September 11 created new understanding of the terrorist threat and the degree to which every nation is vulnerable. That understanding enabled the administration to form a broad and impressive coalition against terrorism. Had the administration tried then to capitalize on this unity of spirit to build a coalition to disarm Iraq, we would not be here in the pressing days before an election, late in this year, debating this now. The administration's decision to engage on this issue now, rather than a year ago or earlier, and the manner in which it has engaged, has politicized and complicated the national debate and raised questions about the credibility of their case. www.independentsforkerry.org...


More:



"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I b elieve that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his contin ued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.


If you find any errors in the facts or logic of this web page, or simply differ in philosophy, I am interested in your feedback. Please no unintelligible rants or raves. Sophomoric or un-referenced responses will be directed to the bit-bucket. J.R. Whipple

Many of the above citations are from national news services. Many news services delete, or move, their old stories over time. If the link seems broken, contact the root web page and/or email the editor for verification, please save your bandwidth, and don't bother to tell me.
www.jrwhipple.com... www.glennbeck.com...


Links:

www.cnn.com...
www.cnn.com...
www.cnn.com...
www.usatoday.com...
www.cnn.com...
www.miami.com...
www.washingtonpost.com...

Hillary speaks:



Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.

As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.

In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed.

[...]
clinton.senate.gov...




posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Thanks for taking the time to post all of that. It drives me crazy that Kerry supporters refuse to believe that Kerry agreed that Saddam was a threat and that Kerry agreed Saddam had WMD. I hope that people, especially Kerry supporters, will really take the time to read this.

Jemison



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Kerry agreed that Saddam was a threat and that Kerry agreed Saddam had WMD


So did everyone in politics across the world (including Australias opposition leader), we were all duped by the neo-cons, do you really want these people running your country?



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by electric squid carpet

Kerry agreed that Saddam was a threat and that Kerry agreed Saddam had WMD


So did everyone in politics across the world (including Australias opposition leader), we were all duped by the neo-cons, do you really want these people running your country?


Is there any end to your baseless, unsubstantiated name calling and rumor spreading? Can all the world's intelligence agencies be under the spell of the almighty "neo-cons?"



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Is there any end to your baseless, unsubstantiated name calling and rumor spreading?


ahahahaha, take your hand off it grady.

EVERYONE i mean EVERYONE was convinced that Saddam had WMD thanks to the Bush administration and that UN speech, i mean, who would lie about something as major as this right? ...with all that evidence?

Then it turns out it was all #*ing bullsh*t.

But you guys still defend it, and turn it into a moral opinion piece (opinions cant be proven wrong).



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Actually not all the world's intel agencies are under the thrall of the necons. They were unhappy with the CIA and INRs assesments on Iraq and set up their own group, the Office of Special Plans, under Doug Feith. This group planned for years to instigate a war with Iraq, and was responsible for introducing the flawed intelligence on Uranium from Niger and giving credit to Saddams brother-in-law's claims of WMD production. They also incubated Chalabi and the INC, even after the CIA had discredited this group.

The problem with Bush is that he preferred the OSP's advice when he was obliged to listen to America's own national security agencies, not special interest lobbying groups.

Here's Pat Buchanan talking about the necons (third link down):

news.yahoo.com...


-koji K.


[edit on 17-9-2004 by koji_K]



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Don't be so hard on Grady he lives in two worlds and its hard enough for him already, sometimes the present and the past gets caught up in one.



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Actually, Bush was quite accurate in stating in his SotU address that the British had learned of Saddam's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa. Here's the MSNBC (hardly a right wing outlet) story dated July 18th, 2004

MSNBC story



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott


quiet you "poor ambassador to ATS"


quiet before we put you in a home =P



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Don't be so hard on Grady he lives in two worlds and its hard enough for him already, sometimes the present and the past gets caught up in one.






posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Don't be so hard on Grady he lives in two worlds and its hard enough for him already, sometimes the present and the past gets caught up in one.


When you have studied and learned as I have, you come to see the seamlessness and the cyclical nature of time. The present is but an extension of the past. The past conditions the present which leads inextricably to the future, but they are not discrete. There is only one time, just changing populations and circumstances. I have passed this way before.



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Grady I agree with you and my comment was not to offend you but I know a lot of people that are very good people until you bring memories with a comment and they change dramatically.

Sometimes you make very good post and I like reading them but sometimes is like another different person doing the posting.

This is just and observation and I mean not offense, by the way I have a 20-year-old daughter in third year of college and an 18-year-old son That is seriously thinking about joining the arm forces so I am not as young as you think. Its a reason why I do not agree with the Iraqi conflict and the misused of our troops.



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by s13guy

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott


quiet you "poor ambassador to ATS"


quiet before we put you in a home =P



Originally posted by s13guy

Originally posted by marg6043
Don't be so hard on Grady he lives in two worlds and its hard enough for him already, sometimes the present and the past gets caught up in one.





Are these examples of appropriate board behavior?



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 09:21 PM
link   
"ooo im tellling"


[edit on 9/17/2004 by s13guy]



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 09:25 PM
link   
An idiot for an idiot. This is what the Great America has come too, 2 men incapable of leading the country, more infatuated with past military records, and a hopeless war on terror.

If America's leaders reflect thier country, then America, well, you take a guess..

Deep



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by s13guy
"ooo im tellling"


[edit on 9/17/2004 by s13guy]


You make a compelling argument, Super Moderator. Could you perhaps address the topic at hand?



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 09:54 PM
link   
s13guy is NOT a moderator or even a member of the staff of AboveTopSecret.com



posted on Sep, 18 2004 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
s13guy is NOT a moderator or even a member of the staff of AboveTopSecret.com


UM_Gazz,

It looks to me that Grady was being sarcastic. This, s13guy, seems to follow Grady around on his postings and make crude comments about Grady's service to his counrty and his medals.

Oh, BTW, Grady. Great posting. People seem to forget when it's convenient for them. Should have named it "John Kerry Agrees With George Bush!".(not saying there's anything wrong with the present one.)

That would have caught some attention from the libs!



posted on Sep, 18 2004 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by s13guy

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott


quiet you "poor ambassador to ATS"


quiet before we put you in a home =P



Originally posted by s13guy

Originally posted by marg6043
Don't be so hard on Grady he lives in two worlds and its hard enough for him already, sometimes the present and the past gets caught up in one.





Are these examples of appropriate board behavior?


Yes it is. When a person is lacking in self-discipline. He's still in high school!



posted on Sep, 18 2004 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by electric squid carpet

Kerry agreed that Saddam was a threat and that Kerry agreed Saddam had WMD


So did everyone in politics across the world (including Australias opposition leader), we were all duped by the neo-cons, do you really want these people running your country?


You mean Mark Latham one of the dopiest Australian politicians of all time

Just for the record, moron the UN believed Saddam had WMD's as well.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join