Reply #23: Here are some interesting quotes from the Congressional Record [View All]

[Devils Advocate NZ]

From October 9 2002 (the day before the resolution was passed):

In approaching the question of this resolution, I wish the timing
were different. I wish for the sake of the country we were not here now
at this moment. There are legitimate questions about that timing. But
none of the underlying realities of the threat, none of the underlying
realities of the choices we face are altered because they are, in fact,
the same as they were in 1991 when we discovered those weapons when the
teams went in, and in 1998 when the teams were kicked out.

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?

<SNIP>

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.

<SNIP>

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.

So who do you think said this?

Kerry made it clear in his speech that he thought war against Iraq to "disarm" it was not only acceptable but necessary if he did not "disarm".

Of course, we KNOW Iraq did not have WMD, so how could he disarm? Kerry in this speech rattles off all of Bush's claims without doubting them at all. In fact he says the war should have come sooner, before or immediately after Sept 11.

Yes, he does say that the UN should be consulted - but ONLY as a means of justifying a war to "disarm" Iraq.

Here is is his closing statement:

So I believe the Senate will make it clear, and the country will make
it clear, that we will not be blackmailed or extorted by these weapons,
and we will not permit the United Nations--an institution we have
worked hard to nurture and create--to simply be ignored by this
dictator.

You could almost wonder who he was talking about here - but in the end, they did allow Bush to ignore the United Nations.

Let me make this clear - Kerry NEVER said the war was wrong. All he said was The war was right but that the rightness of it had to be made clear to the world via the UN. If the UN did not then agree to go to war then Bush was authorised to go it alone.