Kerry says Iraq war 'was mistake'

I think this was today. Just got the e-mail.

It's so long and soooooooooo good.

That boy is mad!!!

Kerry Text

Just a small part on Iraq:

This month, we passed a cruel milestone: more than 1,000 Americans lost in Iraq. Their sacrifice reminds us that Iraq remains, overwhelmingly, an American burden. Nearly 90 percent of the troops � and nearly 90 percent of the casualties � are American. Despite the President�s claims, this is not a grand coalition.

Our troops have served with extraordinary bravery, skill and resolve. Their service humbles all of us. When I speak to them� when I look into the eyes of their families, I know this: we owe them the truth about what we have asked them to do� and what is still to be done.

In June, the President declared, �The Iraqi people have their country back.� Just last week, he told us: �This country is headed toward democracy� Freedom is on the march.�

But the administration�s own official intelligence estimate, given to the President last July, tells a very different story.

According to press reports, the intelligence estimate totally contradicts what the President is saying to the American people.

So do the facts on the ground.

Security is deteriorating, for us and for the Iraqis.

42 Americans died in Iraq in June -- the month before the handover. But 54 died in July�66 in August� and already 54 halfway through September.

And more than 1,100 Americans were wounded in August � more than in any other month since the invasion.

We are fighting a growing insurgency in an ever widening war-zone. In March, insurgents attacked our forces 700 times. In August, they attacked 2,700 times � a 400% increase.

Falluja�Ramadi� Samarra � even parts of Baghdad � are now �no go zones�� breeding grounds for terrorists who are free to plot and launch attacks against our soldiers. The radical Shi�a cleric, Moktada al-Sadr, who�s accused of complicity in the murder of Americans, holds more sway in the suburbs of Baghdad.

Violence against Iraqis� from bombings to kidnappings to intimidation � is on the rise.

Basic living conditions are also deteriorating.

Residents of Baghdad are suffering electricity blackouts lasting up to 14 hours a day.

Raw sewage fills the streets, rising above the hubcaps of our Humvees. Children wade through garbage on their way to school.

Unemployment is over 50 percent. Insurgents are able to find plenty of people willing to take $150 for tossing grenades at passing U.S. convoys.

Yes, there has been some progress, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our soldiers and civilians in Iraq. Schools, shops and hospitals have been opened. In parts of Iraq, normalcy actually prevails.

But most Iraqis have lost faith in our ability to deliver meaningful improvements to their lives. So they�re sitting on the fence� instead of siding with us against the insurgents.

That is the truth. The truth that the Commander in Chief owes to our troops and the American people.

Although Kerry is "right". Hindsight is no good after the decision is made.

Surely there are no sane Americans left out there who still believe that America is bringing "Democracy" to Iraq? Are there still people who are so indoctrinated that they believe that things are "OK" and "on track" over there?

Despite the truth of Kerry's comments, that does not mean he would have made a different decision at the time, nor does it mean he would have made a better leader under same senario.

Looks like the election is between the idiot and the indecisive .... what a choice for the worlds greatest power.

People get the leader they deserve, but does any nation deserve this?

Originally posted by oppodeldoc
��������.
2. The vote to "Authorize the War" is a misquote. The actual vote was to "authorize force" which was something Kerry believed ����������

only an utter moron would believe that authorizing war and authorizing marines to go to a foreign country and use force are different�.while the wording is different the end result is the same��join the marines, travel to distant exotic lands, meet interesting and unusual people��and kill them. What are you implying Kerry thought that they were armed with spit-balls�.he hasn�t been that successful in the senate.

Wow, who put steroids into Kerry's coffee to give him the balls to say the obvious. If he keeps up this assault he should win. He's been walking on eggshells about 9/11 lies and Iraq war lies for way too long without realizing people don't want Bush Lite and they don't want a wuss. Kerry went to prep school, you would think he had learned that when you get bullied at prep school what you must do is walk up to the bully and punch him hard in the nose and he crumbles. Do it, Kerry, punch that blustering puffer fish square in the schnozz and his re-election will implode.

I beleive that going to war in Iraq was wrong from the start. I hope John Kerry's speech reaches out to others and helps them to decide not to vote for Bush.

I found this site just a second ago, interesting.



www.globalissues.org...

Originally posted by keholmes

Originally posted by oppodeldoc
��������.
2. The vote to "Authorize the War" is a misquote. The actual vote was to "authorize force" which was something Kerry believed ����������

only an utter moron would believe that authorizing war and authorizing marines to go to a foreign country and use force are different�.while the wording is different the end result is the same��join the marines, travel to distant exotic lands, meet interesting and unusual people��and kill them. What are you implying Kerry thought that they were armed with spit-balls�.he hasn�t been that successful in the senate.

The resolution said nothing about authorizing marines to go anywhere. I think that a review of the events at the time of the resolution is in order. Let's go back in time to October 11th, 2001:

Congress Approves Iraq Resolution

WASHINGTON���Congress has given President Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq in a major policy victory for the White House.�

The Senate approved the measure 77-23 early Friday morning at the end of a rocky week-long debate. The House voted for the resolution Thursday afternoon, 296-133.�

Because the Democratic-led Senate approved the House version of the measure without changing a word, it now goes directly to Bush for his signature.�

The resolution gives Bush the power to use American military force to enforce existing United Nations Security Council mandates that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein dispose of his weapons of mass destruction.�

It encourages Bush to seek U.N. cooperation in such a campaign, but does not require it.

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., the most outspoken Senate foe of the resolution, accused Congress of "handing the president unchecked authority."

Bush spoke after the House had passed the bill.�

"The House of Representatives has spoken clearly to the world and to the United Nations Security Council: The gathering threat of Iraq must be confronted fully and finally," the president said.�

The president has repeatedly stressed, however, that no final decision on whether to launch a military strike against Iraq has been made.�

While Bush hailed the strong House showing, a majority of House Democrats voted against the resolution -- even though their leader, Dick Gephardt of Missouri, was one of its authors.�

"The issue is how to best protect America. And I believe this resolution does that," Gephardt said.�

The Senate approval of the resolution came after it voted 75-25 to end delaying tactics. It also voted down a series of efforts to weaken or block the resolution, as did the House.�

The administration got a big boost Thursday morning when Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle suddenly announced he was putting aside his misgivings to support the president.�

"I believe it is important for America to speak with one voice," said Daschle, D-S.D. "It is neither a Democratic resolution nor a Republican resolution. It is now a statement of American resolve and values."�

But some influential Democrats remained opposed.�

"The power to declare war is the most solemn responsibility given to Congress by the Constitution," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass. "We must not delegate that responsibility to the president in advance."�
Click here for the rest of the article

The resolution was to enforce U.N. Security Council mandates that Saddam Hussein dispose of all of his WMDs and included a statement that encourages that all diplomatic means be exhausted before force is used. At the time, probably just to get the resolution passed, Bush was making strong claims that he hoped to work with the U.N. and that he wanted the resolution to put additional pressure on negotiations with the Security Council. He also was claiming at the time that he had not made any decisions whether or not force would be used.

Bush did not do as he promised because he did not exhaust all diplomatic means prior to using force. Findings of the weapons inspectors were ignored and they weren't allowed to complete their job as Bush rused into war and as we now know, there really was no true intention to include the U.N. in negotiations. Bush abused the power that Kerry and Congress voted to give him. It was not intended to give him a blank check--it was supposed to be a show of resolve.

I seen him on The Letterman Show tonight and what he was saying didn't coincide with what he said yesterday. I just walked out of the room and fot back online. I wish he'd just go ahead and admit that he has lost this election. Hey, if it's not your money, then spend the heck out of it!

[edit on 21/9/04 by Intelearthling]

Originally posted by slank
THE WAR WAS A MISTAKE.
When will i ever hear those words from any of the right wing hawks, who 'never saw a war they didn't like'.

1) We have found no Weapons of Mass destruction.
2) Saddam had no working relationship with Al-qaeda
3) We are creating/have-created a breeding ground, magnet and HOME for terrorists
4) We have shown are complete hypocracy in supposedly 'dispensing our civil liberties' at Abu-Grabe.
5) We [read Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush] had no idea of what would encountered on the ground in Iraq.
They expected 'flower strewn streets and cheers of accolades'. How dumb can you get. They were so cluless they didn't even have ANY kind of contingency plan layed out.

First of if you didn't know, democratic presidents have started more wars than republican presidents, but of course i guess you don't know this.

Second, you are very naive to say all republicans are war mongerers. I would prefer if there were no wars at all, but there are times when war is the only anwser.

Now, let me address the other points you have made, and which you obviously have no knowledge about. Actually, let me quote from some of the people (democrats) you think would not have gone to war with Iraq. I will only address those parts which do not corroborate what you stated.

I apologize for the lengthly quotes, but i think it is necessary for all members to see the views of the past US administration in this issue, as well as what democrats, including Kerry, have said about this issue.

Bush did not start the war with Iraq, it had already started ever since the Clinton administration.

October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

......................................

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.
...........................
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Excerpted from.
clinton.senate.gov...

Do notice the dates she gives in the above excerpt.

Have we found wmd in iraq? yes we have...many times this has been addressed. What the coalition has not found yet, that we know of, is the stockpiles of wmd that the 1999 UNSCOM report (by the UN) states as unnacounted for. Now, she does state at the end that war with Iraq at that moment in time was not a good choice with all the other looming threats, China/Taiwan, India/Pakistan, etc, but her husband has stated otherwise, that he would have gone to war also, just like Bush did.

Tuesday February 17, 1998

We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information and ideas.

And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.

I want the American people to understand first the past how did this crisis come about?

And I want them to understand what we must do to protect the national interest, and indeed the interest of all freedom-loving people in the world.

Remember, as a condition of the cease-fire after the Gulf War, the United Nations demanded not the United States the United Nations demanded, and Saddam Hussein agreed to declare within 15 days this is way back in 1991 within 15 days his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them, to make a total declaration. That's what he promised to do.

The United Nations set up a special commission of highly trained international experts called UNSCOM, to make sure that Iraq made good on that commitment. We had every good reason to insist that Iraq disarm. Saddam had built up a terrible arsenal, and he had used it not once, but many times, in a decade-long war with Iran, he used chemical weapons, against combatants, against civilians, against a foreign adversary, and even against his own people.

And during the Gulf War, Saddam launched Scuds against Saudi Arabia, Israel and Bahrain.

Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam has spent the better part of the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment. Consider just some of the facts:

Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports.

For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.

In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.

Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?

It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.

And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

As if we needed further confirmation, you all know what happened to his son-in-law when he made the untimely decision to go back to Iraq.

Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it.

Despite Iraq's deceptions, UNSCOM has nevertheless done a remarkable job. Its inspectors the eyes and ears of the civilized world have uncovered and destroyed more weapons of mass destruction capacity than was destroyed during the Gulf War.

This includes nearly 40,000 chemical weapons, more than 100,000 gallons of chemical weapons agents, 48 operational missiles, 30 warheads specifically fitted for chemical and biological weapons, and a massive biological weapons facility at Al Hakam equipped to produce anthrax and other deadly agents.

Over the past few months, as they have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions.

The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.

..............................

Iraq must agree and soon, to free, full, unfettered access to these sites anywhere in the country. There can be no dilution or diminishment of the integrity of the inspection system that UNSCOM has put in place.

Now those terms are nothing more or less than the essence of what he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. The Security Council, many times since, has reiterated this standard. If he accepts them, force will not be necessary. If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences.

I ask all of you to remember the record here what he promised to do within 15 days of the end of the Gulf War, what he repeatedly refused to do, what we found out in 1995, what the inspectors have done against all odds. We have no business agreeing to any resolution of this that does not include free, unfettered access to the remaining sites by people who have integrity and proven confidence in the inspection business. That should be our standard. That's what UNSCOM has done, and that's why I have been fighting for it so hard. And that's why the United States should insist upon it.

...............

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.

Now we have spent several weeks building up our forces in the Gulf, and building a coalition of like-minded nations. Our force posture would not be possible without the support of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the GCC states and Turkey. Other friends and allies have agreed to provide forces, bases or logistical support, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain and Portugal, Denmark and the Netherlands, Hungary and Poland and the Czech Republic, Argentina, Iceland, Australia and New Zealand and our friends and neighbors in Canada.

That list is growing, not because anyone wants military action, but because there are people in this world who believe the United Nations resolutions should mean something, because they understand what UNSCOM has achieved, because they remember the past, and because they can imagine what the future will be depending on what we do now.

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. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors.

I am quite confident, from the briefing I have just received from our military leaders, that we can achieve the objective and secure our vital strategic interests.

Let me be clear: A military operation cannot destroy all the weapons of mass destruction capacity. But it can and will leave him significantly worse off than he is now in terms of the ability to threaten the world with these weapons or to attack his neighbors.

......................

No military action, however, is risk-free. I know that the people we may call upon in uniform are ready. The American people have to be ready as well.
........

Excerpted from.
www.cnn.com...

As you can see by the above, we were already forming a coalition to fight against Iraq, and we did but not in the scale we are at now, while Clinton was president. Not only that, but Clinton and most democrats were saying the same thing, we have to do something against Iraq, even if it is by force, and they have said that Saddam/Iraq did have wmd.


Now, lets see what has Kerry said in the past about Iraq...

In a Sept. 6, 2002, commentary in The New York Times, Kerry wrote: "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act."

Excerpted from.
www.kansas.com...

More quotes by Kerry about Iraq can be found in the above link.






[edit on 21-9-2004 by Muaddib]

[edit on 21-9-2004 by Muaddib]