Can someone explain this Kerry quote to me...

[mzmolly]

“If You Don’t Believe In The U.N. ... Or You Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn’t Vote For Me.” (Ronald Brownstein, “On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd,” Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)"

I consider this a huge blunder/misjudgement to say the least.

[lcordero]

1. Ok, I won't vote for him

:shrug:

[cthrumatrix]

56. lol...too bad the press caters to the Kerry campaign ...they want an easy

one for bush

[Kal Belgarion]

2. What does he mean?

Does he mean that Saddam is a threat and he has Nuclear Weapons, or that Saddam is a threat if he has Nuclear Weapons?

Man, you don't have that "the words may not be right, but you know what I mean" "problem" with Kerry.

[jmusgrat]

3. asphincter says what? Huh? Exactly!

:shrug:

[dansolo]

4. Wouldn't this be considered a gaffe?

I'll give Kerry the benefit of the doubt and assume that what he meant to say was "Or you don't believe Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons is a threat". It is a subtle difference, but it changes the meaning dramatically. In either case, however, he is using the same tactics that Bush does by implying a connection that has not been proven.

[mzmolly]

5. Either way....

It still implies that Saddam is a Nuclear threat as you said.. And yes, it's a gaffe.

JK has many of them, Im coming to find.

[krkaufman]

38. One word that John Kerry needed to have looked up in Merriam-Webster...

==> I M M I N E N T <==

http://www.m-w.com

Main Entry: im·mi·nent
Pronunciation: 'i-m&-n&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin imminent-, imminens, present participle of imminEre to project, threaten, from ...
: ready to take place; especially : hanging threateningly over one's head <was in imminent danger of being run over>
...

(emphasis added)

As in... Saddam Hussein and Iraq did not pose an imminent threat to the United States, or any of her allies.

[IndianaGreen]

43. Perhaps Kerry confused imminent with Eminem

Ya think?????

[cprise]

6. In the media's eyes, it's "statesman-like"

It may be promoting a heinous lie, but definately the furthest thing from a gaffe.

Doncha know..

[mzmolly]

7. For now. The RNC did a paper on John Kerry entitled "will he say anything

to get elected" back in 1986. I'm sure they're dying to pull that out.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. It's pretty simple if you are willing to understand it.

e.g.:

I don't think Saddam has nuclear weapons.
I think Saddam would like to get nuclear weapons.
If you don't believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn’t vote for me.

[mzmolly]

17. Not at all what he said, nice try though...

:hi:

[cindyw]

9. Given your massive elipsis here you need to provide a link

If you cannot admit Kerry and the Congress was lied to then you cannot say that Bush lied.

[mzmolly]

11. Dean was lied to also, so was Kucinich. Kerry calls himself a leader

all I see is a follower, a follower of Bush.

That is why we need to take our party/country back. THIS is a perfect example.

Kerry said the evidence presented by Colin Powell at the UN was "compelling" Edwards said it was "overwhelming" Dean said "I'm not convinced." Dean is leadership material, Kerry simply is not.

[sandnsea]

24. "Saddam must be disarmed"

Nobody wanted to go to war unilaterally. That is all Howard Dean was ever against, unilateral war. All Democrats were against unilateral war. It's always been a lie for Howard Dean to try to pretend his anti-war statements were any more than being against unilateral war. And all he said was that Colin Powell hadn't made the case for unilateral war. He must have made the case for chem/bio weapons and possible nuclear programs though, because Howard believed that.

"They do not have much of a nuclear program, if they have one at all left. And they have not... there is not any particular evidence that is convincing that they have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. All those three things would constitute, in my view, a reason to defend our country by unilaterally attacking. But those are not the cases. Sec. Powell and the president have not made those cases well.

We believe... I believe that Iraq does have chemical and biological weapons, and they are a threat to many nations in the region, but not to the United States. Therefore in my view, the United States ought not to attack unilaterally. The United Nations should disarm Saddam, and we should be a part of that effort."

"but that if Saddam refuses, for example, to destroy the missiles as the United Nations has demanded, then I think the United Nations is going to have an obligation to disarm him."

http://www.christianmusictv.com/id95.htm

[Forkboy]

27. You both have a done a fantastic job

of convincing me neither guy is worth voting for.

Thank you.

[sandnsea]

35. 4 more years! 4 more years!

Think. Choose.

[Forkboy]

37. Fear and guilt wont work on me

It may on you but that's your business.I see three options;

1-Vote for Bush and take large steps towards doom.

2-Vote for a Dem and take medium steps towards doom.

3-Vote for the Green Party and still go towards doom,but with my soul intact.

Pretty sucky choices all around.

[IndianaGreen]

41. Amazing how they use fear in the same way as Bush

uses his Orange Alerts to keep the public in a state of near-panic. This tactic of using fear to elicit a response from the public is getting rather old.

[Forkboy]

46. I'm immune to it

reality is scary enough.I don't need what if's to scare me now.What is is bad enough.

[sandnsea]

42. Soul intact?

Sorry if I ever knowingly contributed towards doom, my soul wouldn't be intact. I hate Howard Dean every bit as much as I hate George Bush and that is the god's truth. But I would campaign for him and vote for him because I have to do everything I can to pull us away from the edge of disaster. I have no confidence Howard Dean would accomplish anything, but he wouldn't destroy anything either. And that's something.

[Forkboy]

45. Dems will lead us away from the edge

about oh,ten feet or so away.

[sandnsea]

47. Better than going over n/t

[Forkboy]

50. We will anyways

The Dems will just be slower about it.

Meanwhile,homelessness will still increase.....

Meanwhile,hunger will spread even more....

Meanwhile,injustice will increase even more....

And meanwhile,people who actually care about these things will be told they're unelectable positions,treated like lepers by others in their own party,and told we have to vote Dem once again because the alternative is just to awful to comprehend.

You know,that alternative isn't so awful to me anymore now that I see both parties will just continue down the same dead end road...only one goes slower.Big whoop.

Enjoy your trip.After 04 I'm stepping off the Dem Cavalcade of Kiss Ass Positions.

[Old and In the Way]

22. That really is the point, cindyw, thanks for distilling it down

And based on my read of the phrasing, I'd consider Hussein a threat if he had nuclear weapons.

[mzmolly]

23. Considering he didn't have nuclear weapons it was a moot point n/t.

[Nicholas_J]

10. From the way the quote is broken up...

There is no way to tell the meaning of the quote.

If you do not beleive in the U.N., applies to of course, Kerrys insistance on relegating all international problems to the U.N. ( Kerry beleives in what has been called "progressive internationalism" which means that he beleives that with regard to international affairs, the U.N. and the U.N. alone should be the only body to determine if the use of military force should be allowed to be used to correct international problems, only putting aside the U.S. right to protect itself if another country poses a direct threat to the U.S. (like If Canada delared war and launched a large bottle of La Batts at New York City). He only approves of the U.S. engaging use of force to uphold international law as a part of an international force, and not as the head of such a force.


If you do not beleive that saddam is a threat with nuclaear weapons does not indicate a belief that Saddam has nuclear weapons, but Saddam with Nuclear weapons would be a threat. without the section that has been ellipsised out, you cant tell what he was referring to.

http://www.standardtimes.com/daily/02-03/02-02-03/b01lo052.htm


And the entire Brownstein article is not online.

[mzmolly]

13. Sounds like double talk to me. The statement is crystal clear.

Here is more information from your article. Which by the way outlines Kerrys duplicity on this issue.

"Yet, on the other side of the ledger, Kerry refused to endorse Kennedy's call this week for a second congressional vote. And, in his speech last week, he told a questioner who suggested that force would ever be justified against Iraq: "If you don't believe in the U.N. ... or you don't believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."

Yup, seems *quite* clear to me.

G'night all! :hi:

[question everything]

12. He also said something like that on CBS 60 minutes

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/23/60minutes/main595431.shtml

"No," replies Kerry. "I think a better way to phrase that is: I voted for a process by which war would be the last resort. And those are the conditions which the president himself established. He said, 'I will build a coalition. We're going to use the United Nations, we will inspect, and I will go to war as a last resort.' He did not do anything three of those things. So yes, I believe we should have stood up to Saddam Hussein, I thought it was important for our nation’s security. There was a right way to do it, and there was a wrong way to do it. The president chose the wrong way."

And for those who say Kerry should have voted no, Kerry adds this: "If anyone believes that I would have used that authority the way George Bush did, they should not vote for me, period."

[IndianaGreen]

14. By February it was obvious that Bush was going to war

Where was Kerry then? Did he join in any antiwar protests? Did he call for a Congressional Resolution telling Bush that he couldn't go to war? Did he call for Bush's impeachment once the war began?

The answer is "NO"!

[mzmolly]

15. Riiiight, that's why he failed to support Kennedys resolution.

John Kerry is trying to have it both ways, and it's apparent as hell.

"Kerry next made a splash with a Jan. 23 speech in which he urged Bush to delay any possible attack against Iraq, both to give inspections more time and to "show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine (international) coalition."

Then, just before Bush's State of the Union address on Tuesday, Kerry told a small group of reporters that he believed the report from chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix the day before had shown Iraq to be in "material breach" of the U.N. resolution demanding disarmament -- thus triggering the legal threshold for war."

John Kerry want's it both ways.

[sandnsea]

16. Is Saddam a threat with nuclear weapons? n/t

[mzmolly]

18. Nope, he never had any.... n/t

[question everything]

20. He tried. But Israel bombed his reactor back in 1982

and there were stories that he was ready with another one.

[mzmolly]

21. *stories* ... *1982* ... sorry not related n/t

[sandnsea]

25. You knew that in 2002??

You'd think the world would be run perfectly with so many clairvoyants around. :eyes:

[Forkboy]

29. Any response to my point below?

You obviously feel Saddam with nukes was a threat that justified our actions,yet I've shown some other countries that are equally,if not more so (China especially), a threat to world safety.

Do you also believe we should tackle these countries? If so why,if not why not?

[sandnsea]

33. Oh why hell yes

If you think Saddam with nuclear weapons is a-ok, we really have nothing more to discuss. That is pure insanity.

[Forkboy]

19. Is the US? How about China? Pakistan maybe?

Israel? South Africa?

to me anyone with nukes is a threat...we better invade and kill thousands of innocents in all those countries...just to be on the safe side.

[sandnsea]

26. Just explaining the quote

And yes, Pakistan's nuclear weapons are dangerous and we ought to be working to get them and India to disarm. As well as Israel. But I don't recall any of these countries using chemical weapons in wars either.

South Africa already did disarm, by the way.

[Forkboy]

30. So using chemical weapons is the point of no return

Why didn't we attack them when they used them then? Why did we wait twenty years? We've used them (agent orange),should someone have bombed us for it? Both Germany and England used them in WW1....why do we give that a pass?

Why are you "willing to work" with the other countries,but bombing the shit out of Iraq and killing thousands of innocents is ok? Why weren't you willing to "work with" them?

An will you be signing up to serve when we attack China? :)

[sandnsea]

32. This is insane

Agent Orange was not used against people. It was a defoliant. WWI??? :eyes:

And who didn't want to continue letting inspections work in Iraq? What Democrat said to stop the inspections and go to war?

[Forkboy]

36. Just asking you for some consistancy

Why are we giving China a pass on nukes? Aren't they a threat?

Again,why weren't we willing to "work with" Iraq,but we will with North Korea,China,etc.? Why are they different?

And who didn't want to continue letting inspections work in Iraq?

Anyone that voted for the damn war.

[sandnsea]

44. Dammit

This is a load of bullshit. There weren't any goddamn inspectors in Iraq when that vote was made. You've got to know that by now. It's been posted 10,000 times. What thrill does it give you to keep making the same stupid arguments?

Again, who didn't want to continue letting inspections work in Iraq?

[Forkboy]

48. "Again, who didn't want to continue letting inspections work in Iraq?"

Again,the people who ok'd the war.

[sandnsea]

52. That makes no sense

The vote got the inspectors in. You know that.

[Forkboy]

55. You're right Sand

My anger and frustration coupled with my incredibly bad mood tonight has overtaken my thinking (such as it is).I'm not making any of my points very well tonight,both here and elsewhere.

My apologies to you,and a thank you for making me pause and actaully THINK.It's something I'm not doing well tonight.

Peace.

[bigtree]

28. Does this elevate your candidate as you tear John down?

[Forkboy]

31. sucks being the front runner

[sandnsea]

34. Bring it on. n/t

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

40. lol

I dont know sand....already I see signs that some Kerry people can't take the heat here.

But good luck...you're gonna need it.

[Maddy McCall]

49. I see why you didn't provide a link--it's from a right-wing source:

Ironically, for the past decade, Kerry has cited evidence of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. As recently as January of 2003 Kerry said, “If you don’t believe in the U.N. ... or you don’t believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn’t vote for me.” At the rate John Kerry is going, many people will not have to worry about voting for him because he won’t even be on the ballot.


Glad to know we are letting the National Federation of Republican Women provide our talking points now.

The original post should at least cite where this came from:

http://www.nfrw.org/programs/issues/briefing/2003/1020.htm

And on edit: Since you have refused to provide a link after numerous people on this thread have asked you to, I did a google search and the link above was the first on the list. If you have a better source that shows what Kerry said--what is ellipsed out--please provide it.

[Forkboy]

51. Kerry provided it though

unless he really didn't say it.

[Maddy McCall]

53. It's not an accurate quotation with the ellipses

[isbister]

54. I wouldn't give Saddam Hussein a nuclear weapon

Dictators are nuts. Saddam, or any dictator, is a threat with his finger on a nuclear button.

I am firmly against dictators having nuclear weapons and I am glad Kerry understands that Saddam would be a threat if he had a nuke (especially today, Saddam must really be ticked off).

[Moderator]

57. Locking

Please provide links for sources of quotes.

Thanks!