Some Dems believed that Saddam had WMD's ... But Bush said he had NUKES!

[mzmolly]

Bush also said Saddam was an "urgent threat" in possession of "weapons of mass death" working towards "nuclear capability" ...

Clinton never uttered such words
Kerry never uttered such words

What Kerry did say on the floor of the Senate on the day of the vote is as follows:

By beginning its public discourse with talk of invasion and regime change, the administration raised doubts about their bona fides on the most legitimate justification for war--that in the post-September 11 world the unrestrained threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein is unacceptable, and his refusal to allow U.N. inspectors to return was in blatant violation of the 1991 cease-fire agreement that left him in power. By casting about in an unfocused, undisciplined, overly public, internal debate for a rationale for war, the administration complicated their case, confused the American public, and compromised America's credibility in the eyes of the world community. By engaging in hasty war talk rather than focusing on the central issue of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the administration placed doubts in the minds of potential allies, particularly in the Middle East, where managing the Arab street is difficult at best.

Against this disarray, it is not surprising that tough questions began to be asked and critics began to emerge. Indeed over the course of the last 6 weeks some of the strongest and most thoughtful questioning of our Nation's Iraq policy has come from what some observers would say are unlikely sources: Senators like CHUCK HAGEL and DICK LUGAR, former Bush Administration national security experts including Brent Scowcroft and James Baker, and distinguished military voices including General Shalikashvili. They are asking the tough questions which must be answered before--and not after--you commit a nation to a course that may well lead to war. They know from their years of experience, whether on the battlefield as soldiers, in the Senate, or at the highest levels of public diplomacy, that you build the consent of the American people to sustain military confrontation by asking questions, not avoiding them. Criticism and questions do not reflect a lack of patriotism--they demonstrate the strength and core values of our American democracy.

Full text here:

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

If the President had listened to Kerry and others, we'd have had inspections ... not war.

[sangh0]

1. Good point!

And Cheney said that he knew where they were - outside of Bagdhad near Tikrit, so either he was lying, or he lost the nukes!!!

[mzmolly]

2. I wish the Dems would say this. They often conceede that the R's and the

Dems agreed on the WMD issue, we did not. Dems said in the past that they felt Saddam may have WMD's, and we needed inspections to decide upon the next course of action.

:hi:

[LimpingLib]

6. Sorry but you seem to have forgotten the 1990s.

BIG TIME to quote another hawk.

And sadly our ticket has shown time and time again recently that it doesnt even realize that the brutal multi-lateral sanctions were the absolute worst element of our Iraq policy and now want to extend it to Iran.

[mzmolly]

8. The sanctions against Iraq were placed on them by the UN under Bush

one. Sorry my memory is clear, yours appears to be fading. ;)

[Birthmark]

3. I never believed or disbelieved in the WMD

I said at the time that it wasn't proven that Saddam had any WMD. I was right. That was the state of affairs.

[seabeyond]

4. he wasnt getting hte u.s. behind him on wmd's

that is why he had to go to nukes and mushroom clouds

[LimpingLib]

5. As did Edwards (while being booed at a Democratic forum)

I am beginning to wonder who will be worse on foreign policy.

If Edwards thought it was worthwhile to bomb Iraq over potential nukes then surely Iran will be an easy target.

WE learn nothing from the past. We forced the world through selective UN resolutions to sanction Iraq and thus killed off a million inocent civilians.

Now our ticket wants to try and get WORLD sanctions on Iran to destroy that country as well.

You dont see sanctions on China but infact see MFN/PNTR strongly supported by our ticket. Thanks to beefing up China's economy there ,I must admit(though its unlikly), is the possibility they could be a potential military threat sometime in the future.I dont like seeing any nation put "in a box" but to put sanctions on other economys and harm them while enocuraging businesses to go to a hum rights nightmare and HEAVY military building country (which has a history of tremendous agressivness too boot , unanwsered ugressivness which has swallowed whole countrys post UN) is just flat out twilightzone logic.

You dont see WMD based sanctions being threatened on Israel (which BTW is the only reason countrys ,aside from the threat the USA poses, in the region want WMDs , as a MAD defence against Israel )INFACT we will continue the post 1980 policy of issuing a veto time after time to revent any more resolutions that indict Israel. Not that it would matter , we select which resolutions we like and which we dont like.

Kerry has won this election. I STRONGLY suggest we start making our feelings know about us having no right whatsoever to go after Iran.

Iran WAS a democracy before we meddled. www.zmag.org/bouzidlat.htm

WE arent stopping WMD from being introduced into the region , WE introduced them by arming our allies in the past: Turkey , Iraq and allowing Israel to get nukes.

WE arent introducing democracy. I remember (reading) back in 1908 Iran had a budding democracy and did have one when we overthrew it in 1953. Pakistan had one till the "positive development" (Bush said that) of a coup overthrew it. Afghanistan had one in decades past.

Israel and Turkey are part of the region too,right? Granted they either expel 80% of their ethnic minoritys (Israel) or send in a US puppet military (Turkey) to overthrow the peoples will when canidates "too Islamic" win elections but they ARE "sort of" democracys based on the current definition and the only undemocratic elements are ones we encourage. Likewise for Lebanon , but it has undemocratic elements to gurantee western forces (in the form of Christians) get 50% of seats and power sharing.

The truth is that ALL undemocratic elements in the region are due to us supporting dictators and not wanting the people to get their will through majority vote in the region.Either through us not liking the religon of the majority or as in the case of Iran not liking their oil nationalism policys , we extinguish the flame of progress and democracy.

[mzmolly]

7. Edwards said Saddam had "Nukes" ???

I realize he was a bit hawkish at times, but he realizes today that he was a fool to listen to Bush. I do not recall him asserting that Saddam was a imminent nuclear threat.

BTW, I guarantee you that Bush is a far greater danger to Iranians then Kerry/Edwards.

Your making quite a leap here suggesting that K/E will bomb Iran. Especially without any information to back up that assertion.

Planning to Vote Nader this year? He doesn't even have a position on Foreign Policy/Iran on his website. He also says NADA about "Homeland Security". Why is he an acceptable candidate? He hasn't a platform other than what is plagerized from other people. And in spite of that, it's incomplete.

I do agree with you about "us" supporting dictators, but the US is "them" as in the friggen Republicans.

Also, I'm not a huge fan of sanctions, but the US under Bush the first, acted in concert with the international community to sanction Iraq, and were it not for the pillaging of the oil for food program, Iraqi people may have been unharmed. Further, the sanctions are said to be the reason that Saddam did NOT have WMD's (according to the same CIA report that came out today indicating Saddam DID NOT have WMD's.) Again, not defending the particulars of the sanctions here just clearing a few things up.

The Clinton administration disarmed Saddam Hussein in concert with the UN, and I assure you the Iraqi people would rather Clinton was in office today then Bush.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/strategy.html