Kerry: Made case for pre-emptive strikes on Iraq. Cant count on the French!
Gleeful *Stargis
"During a 1997 debate on CNN's "Crossfire," Sen. John Kerry, now the
Democratic presidential nominee, made the case for launching a pre-emptive
attack against Iraq."
"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the
Russians," said Mr. Kerry. "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."
http://www.washtimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm
Inside the Beltway
By John McCaslin
Kerry out attack
During a 1997 debate on CNN's "Crossfire," Sen. John Kerry, now the
Democratic presidential nominee, made the case for launching a pre-emptive
attack against Iraq.
So reveals Rep. Peter King, New York Republican, who appeared with Mr.
Kerry on the program.
Mr. King says the U.N. Security Council had just adopted a resolution
against Iraq that was watered down at the behest of the French and the
Russians. Yet the candidate who now criticizes President Bush for ignoring
French and Russian objections to the Iraq war blasted the two countries,
claiming that they were compromised by their business dealings with Baghdad.
"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the
Russians," said Mr. Kerry. "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."
While no "Crossfire" transcripts from 1997 are available, Mr. King in
recent days produced a tape of the show, sharing it with New York radio host
Monica Crowley for broadcast, and this Inside the Beltway column for
publication. Stay tuned.
Hill harvest
In passing the 2005 Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act, Congress this week handed itself a pay raise — jacking up
its annual salary nearly $4,000 above a current income of $158,000.
It marks the sixth straight year that Congress has accepted an automatic
pay raise. Hats off to two-term Rep. Jim Matheson, Utah Democrat, who last
week made a procedural attempt to prevent the annual pay increase, but his
measure was voted down 235 to 170.
Does anybody care that the congressional paycheck is growing while the
country is $422 billion in debt?
"Members of Congress must think that money grows on trees," says Council
for Citizens Against Government Waste President Tom Schatz, who agrees that
"one of the many perks of being a member of Congress is that it is the only
job in which you can apparently get away with giving yourself a pay raise
during a time of increasing red ink."
Flip-flopping
Former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani told President Bush this week
that he is sorry.
"I owe you an apology," Mr. Giuliani began. "I made a mistake during my
[Republican National Convention] speech ... I said that with 64 days to go,
John Kerry could change his mind five or six times about what to do in Iraq.
Well, he's already changed his mind four or five times and I'm going to be
proven wrong again because I think we're looking more like eight or nine
times."
Outlasting Moses
"In all my years in the Senate, I have never seen the abusive tactics,
shameless attacks, and polarizing and poisonous language they're now using in
a desperate effort to cling to their narrow majority in Congress."
— Sen. Ted Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, who was first elected to the
Senate 42 years ago in 1962, referring to the Republicans
Hairy Kerry
So much for Sen. John Kerry's hair.
Seventy-six percent of respondents to a Grooming Lounge (where
political-party heads as well as celebrities such as Bruce Willis and Elliot
Gould get coiffed while in Washington) poll say President Bush has better hair
than his rival.
And don't think hair isn't important in this era of television campaigns,
when elections can come down to whoever looks the part.
Bushier-browed candidates, for example, have lost the popular vote in the
past four presidential elections. And 92 percent of those surveyed think Mr.
Kerry has the most pronounced "eyebrows of mass destruction" of the two
candidates.
"In order to prevent history from repeating itself, we believe Kerry needs
to have his eyebrows groomed," says Mike Gilman, co-founder of Grooming
Lounge.
Paul Broadway
"Gleeful *Stargis" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:SLOdnf70EaF...@giganews.com...
>
> "During a 1997 debate on CNN's "Crossfire," Sen. John Kerry, now the
> Democratic presidential nominee, made the case for launching a pre-emptive
> attack against Iraq."
>
> "We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the
> Russians," said Mr. Kerry. "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."
>
I saw the film of Mr. Kerry saying this. *I* don't know what context he may
have been speaking in. There is always going to be spin in another
direction. Senator Kerry did, in fact make this statement.
--
Paul Broadway
www.broadwaypub.com
Gleeful *Stargis
sd...@earthlink.net says...
>
>
>
>I saw the film of Mr. Kerry saying this. *I* don't know what context he may
>have been speaking in. There is always going to be spin in another
>direction. Senator Kerry did, in fact make this statement.
>
>
>--
>Paul Broadway
>www.broadwaypub.com
>
>
Ahh the "context" was a democrat was in the white house lobbing missiles.
The Pretzel
"Paul Broadway" <sd...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:FvZ4d.316$Ki...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
This is the context you need.
Reasons for airstrike under Clinton:
__________________________
*Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites.
*Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence.
*Iraq tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site
and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's
questions.
Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all documents requested by the
inspectors.
__________________________
Reasons for Shrub's unilateral INVASION of Iraq: (Reverse chronology)
Early March 2003:
1.Destruction of Al Samoud 2 short-range missiles begins under UN supervision
and continues in days following. Twenty-eight missiles destroyed through 6
March. Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix calls destruction of missiles "a
very significant piece of real disarmament."
2. Late February 2003
Iraq begins UN-monitored excavation at site sixty miles south of Baghdad where
it claims large quantities of prohibited chemical and biological agents were
disposed in 1991. Invites UN officials to gather physical evidence at the site
to seek confirmation that prohibited items were destroyed.2 Excavation reveals
remnants of approximately 150 R-400 bombs that had contained anthrax.
3. 14 February 2003
Hans Blix reports that Iraq has provided a list of eighty-three individuals
involved in the 1991 destruction of prohibited materials from biological weapons
and missile programs.3 The individuals are made available for interview to help
provide evidence of the claimed destruction of prohibited items.
4. 14 February 2003
At the insistence of UN officials Saddam Hussein issued a presidential decree
banning the production of weapons of mass destruction in accordance with
Security Council resolutions.4 This fulfills the obligation in previous UN
resolutions that Iraq renounce the development or use of weapons of mass
destruction.
5. 10 February 2003
Iraq agrees to allow U-2 surveillance flights in accordance with UN demands. U-2
flights begin 17 February, with Iraq assuring the safety of flights as required
by Security Council Resolution 1441.5
6. 6 February 2003
Baghdad allows first private interview to be conducted with Iraqi scientist.
Interview takes place in Baghdad hotel. Subsequent interviews occur in early
March.6
7. 27 January 2003
Blix reports to the Security Council that Iraq has submitted a 193-page listing
of all imports by the agency responsible for biological weapons development.7
8. 20 January 2003
Iraq and UN reach 10-point agreement to better facilitate inspections. Agreement
includes provisions to form Iraqi commissions to determine locations of weapons
and documents left out of the 7 December weapons declaration and to conduct
technical discussions with the IAEA about nuclear-related imports.
9. 9 January 2003
Hans Blix reports to the Security Council that Iraq has cooperated by providing
an "open doors" policy of unfettered access to requested sites. According to a
later statement from Blix, "the most important point to make is that access has
been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect." IAEA director Mohamed
ElBaradei likewise reports on 9 January that "Iraqi authorities have
consistently provided access without conditions and without delay.10 Blix also
reports that Iraq has provided new information on its weapons activities,
including an "Air Force document" that may shed light on Iraq's use of chemical
weapons during the Iran-Iraq war.
10. 28 December 2002
Iraqi national monitoring directorate provides UNMOVIC with list of more than
500 individuals involved in the chemical, biological, and nuclear and ballistic
missile programs. In response to UN complaints that the list is inadequate, Iraq
provides eighty additional names in late January.
11. 7 December 2002
Iraq submits 12,000-page weapons declaration to UNMOVIC and IAEA one day in
advance of the 30-day deadline mandated in Resolution 1441.12 Although provided
on time, the weapons declaration is judged inadequate.
12. 16 September 2002
In response to President Bush's address at the UN General Assembly, Iraq agrees
to allow the unconditional return of UN weapons inspectors. After refusing to
permit UN monitoring for nearly four years, Iraq quickly concedes to the demand
for renewed disarmament inspections.
The Pretzel
> "Paul Broadway" <sd...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:FvZ4d.316$Ki...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
I need to add that this is another feather in Kerry's cap. Listen closely to the
Rightarded spin.
Kerry has been consistent with the threat of Saddam and the non-coplience of
Saddam to UN resolutions. In '97 Saddam stonewalled before Clinton's airstrikes.
In 2002, Saddam did comply before Shrub struck by air...
Read the list.
Paul Broadway
"The Pretzel" <rold...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pu_4d.19455$OB2....@twister.socal.rr.com...
> >
> > "Paul Broadway" <sd...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:FvZ4d.316$Ki...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> I need to add that this is another feather in Kerry's cap. Listen closely
to the
> Rightarded spin.
> Kerry has been consistent with the threat of Saddam and the non-coplience
of
> Saddam to UN resolutions. In '97 Saddam stonewalled before Clinton's
airstrikes.
> In 2002, Saddam did comply before Shrub struck by air...
>
> Read the list.
Mr. Pretzel, there is no "feathers" in anyone's cap. War sucks and people
die violently. It is necessary sometimes, but no one should be smug about
it.
>
> > > I saw the film of Mr. Kerry saying this. *I* don't know what context
he may
> > > have been speaking in. There is always going to be spin in another
> > > direction. Senator Kerry did, in fact make this statement.
> >
> > This is the context you need.
> >
> > Reasons for airstrike under Clinton:
> > > *Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites.
Woohoo, so this is a Bush administration was wrong, so the Clinton
administration was right kind of thing? No, both bungled the job. I don't
give high marks for doing nothing, any more than I give high marks for doing
the wrong thing. Neither administration had the right idea.
--
Paul Broadway
www.broadwaypub.com
The Pretzel
>
> "The Pretzel" <rold...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:pu_4d.19455$OB2....@twister.socal.rr.com...
> > >
> > > "Paul Broadway" <sd...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > news:FvZ4d.316$Ki...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > I need to add that this is another feather in Kerry's cap. Listen closely
> to the
> > Rightarded spin.
> > Kerry has been consistent with the threat of Saddam and the non-coplience
> of
> > Saddam to UN resolutions. In '97 Saddam stonewalled before Clinton's
> airstrikes.
> > In 2002, Saddam did comply before Shrub struck by air...
> >
> > Read the list.
>
> Mr. Pretzel, there is no "feathers" in anyone's cap. War sucks and people
> die violently. It is necessary sometimes, but no one should be smug about
> it.
READ what I posted. The "feather" I refer to is consistency.
Not war.
If you want to change the subject fine. Start another thread. If you thought I
was refering to war check your head.
Paul Broadway
>
> "Paul Broadway" <sd...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:pK%4d.441$Ki1...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "The Pretzel" <rold...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:pu_4d.19455$OB2....@twister.socal.rr.com...
> > > >
non-coplience
> > of
> > > Saddam to UN resolutions. In '97 Saddam stonewalled before Clinton's
> > airstrikes.
> > > In 2002, Saddam did comply before Shrub struck by air...
> > >
> > > Read the list.
> I agree.
>
> READ what I posted. The "feather" I refer to is consistency.
No, you were stating that Senator Kerry supported President Clinton's 1997
decision to use air strikes against Iraq. Then you said it was a "feather"
in his cap. Those air strikes were not marshmellows, they were BGM 109A
Tomahawk cruise missles. Have you ever seen what they do in the
anti-personnel mode? A lot of unwitting Iraqis probably lost their lives
that day. What exactly did President Clinton's decision accomplish? What
did President Clinton's decision to use that same weapon system against
Afghanistan accomplish? Consistency is nice, killing people for an
OBJECTIVE is better. You can't punish Saddam Hussein by killing some people
by long distance. Our policy in Iraq has been a sham since Gulf War One.
No one gets a passing grade for this mess, not President Bush, not Senator
Kerry, not Former Pesident Clinton.
--
Paul Broadway
www.broadwaypub.com
The Pretzel
I'll say it one more time.
Kerry has been consistent.
I'm not judging policy. I'm not saying bombing Iraq has solved anything. The
point is that Saddam had a weakened president Clinton to "bully" and thought he
could get away with stonewalling weapons inspections. Some sort of response was
due. He (Saddam) violated his cease-fire agreement. ...and his surrender...
In 2002, Saddam found American troops on his boarder. The Senate voted for
authorization to give Shrub what Shrub claimed would be "A way to help support
the peace by giving me a strong hand." Shrub had weapons inspectors in. Saddam
complied 99-100%. Shrub decided to pull the trigger anyway.
In other words he (Shrub) violated the 107th Congress and broke the law and
ignored what HJ Resolution-110 demanded.
> --
> Paul Broadway
> www.broadwaypub.com
>
>
Gleeful *Stargis
says...
Shrub decided to pull the trigger anyway.
>
>In other words he (Shrub) violated the 107th Congress and broke the law and
>ignored what HJ Resolution-110 demanded.
>
KERRY: "George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given
diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to
disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported
him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." (ABC News Democrat
Presidential Candidates Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/3/03)
Paul Broadway
> I'll say it one more time.
>
> Kerry has been consistent.
Consistently wrong.
> I'm not judging policy. I'm not saying bombing Iraq has solved anything.
The
> point is that Saddam had a weakened president Clinton to "bully" and
thought he
> could get away with stonewalling weapons inspections. Some sort of
response was
> due. He (Saddam) violated his cease-fire agreement. ...and his
surrender...
My point is that whether the Democrats or thr Republicans were in power,
both had the wrong policy for Iraq. I also have stated that I find both
parties equally vile and base. Neither has done what is required to
stabilize the Mid-East. Both sides fail to understand that it was Coca
Cola, KFC, and a myriad of other companies that provided the bribe that made
the bad People lay down their weapons in past conflicts. Marketing and easy
consumerism has allowed many of our conflicts to disappear. We have missed
too many chances to corrupt these people with Game Boys and X-Boxes long
enough.
> In 2002, Saddam found American troops on his boarder. The Senate voted for
> authorization to give Shrub what Shrub claimed would be "A way to help
support
> the peace by giving me a strong hand." Shrub had weapons inspectors in.
Saddam
> complied 99-100%. Shrub decided to pull the trigger anyway.
Who are you calling the Shrub? Why are you calling them the shrub? Could
you please use correct names, so I can follow along?
> In other words he (Shrub) violated the 107th Congress and broke the law
and
> ignored what HJ Resolution-110 demanded.
O.K., so what? What are you going to do about it? Who cares, politicians
lie and break the law all of the time? So how is that going to improve the
situation in Iraq? How is voting for either President Bush or Senator Kerry
going to repeal the Patriot Act or FISA? I'm sorry Pretzel, I can't cut any
of these people slack, they both deserve condemnation.
--
Paul Broadway
www.broadwaypub.com