Kerry says Iraq war 'was mistake'

Who gives a crap if Saddam had WMD anyway. Even though it turned out he didn't, it's not like Iraq is the only place in the world to get WMDs.

How are they going to give nuclear weapons to terrorists? A nuke from a low-tech country will be huge beyond belief. It's better to break into a dentist's shop or food processing company and steal an X-ray machine or break into a food radiator and pull the Cesium out, powderize it, then put it into a small bomb and let it go off in the subway.

Go to any place that does gold electroplating and you can get pure cyanide. Go to any chemical dump and you can get stuff that will turn your hair on end.

What's he going to do with some #ing mustard gas, put it in a spaceship and send it to NYC? Gimme a break, the entire rationale was bogus beyond belief.

If you have two terrorists, what's better - to get a dirty nuke from Saddam or a vial of cyanide, come to the US, get through inspections and customs, and release this stuff? Or would you come to the US, carjack an 18-wheeler of gasoline and ram it into a crowd and detonate it? Would you rather contact Saddam, get through spy rings, get a container of botulism, come to the US, get the stuff through Customs, and spread the botulism on a salad bar, or would you rather make a botulism strain with petri dishes and virii right here?

Would you rather grow castor plants here in the US where it's perfectly legal and extract the ricin, or import the ricin?

Hey let's not think about the obvious here. Let's convince the public that Iraqi UAVs are going to poison American cities and the smoking gun's going to come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

LMAO.

Scare tactics out the ass. The entire war rationale with the WMDs was a political tool and a public mindscrewing session. A dedicated team of terrorists could grab more WMDs out of this country than you could ever smuggle in from any country that had them and was handing them out to terrorists.

By voting for the war in Iraq kerry dug himself a very deep hole which he is traped in and if he is voted into office he will suffocate in the hole. What has Kerry said that he will do differently to Bush if in office?
NOTHING concerning Iraq.
Unless Kerry commits more then words to Iraq it will be no better when he leaves the oval office (if hes voted into the whitehouse !)

Originally posted by xpert11
By voting for the war in Iraq kerry dug himself a very deep hole which he is traped in and if he is voted into office he will suffocate in the hole. What has Kerry said that he will do differently to Bush if in office?
NOTHING concerning Iraq.
Unless Kerry commits more then words to Iraq it will be no better when he leaves the oval office (if hes voted into the whitehouse !)

No he didn�t he did it for the same believe as everybody else, because everybody else agreed that Sadam had MWDs, because bush administration lie and we the people of this country believe it and so everybody else that helped US, too bad now we don't look very reliable any more and neither our present president.

Go ahead and admitte it US and this president made an error of judgment and invaded a country for the wrong reason disregarding the real purpose of the war on terror and that was to eliminate Al-queda and bring bin-laden to justice.

Where is bin-laden?

That is bush biggest mistake.

Originally posted by taibunsuu
If you have two terrorists, what's better - to get a dirty nuke from Saddam or a vial of cyanide, come to the US, get through inspections and customs, and release this stuff? Or would you come to the US, carjack an 18-wheeler of gasoline and ram it into a crowd and detonate it? Would you rather contact Saddam, get through spy rings, get a container of botulism, come to the US, get the stuff through Customs, and spread the botulism on a salad bar, or would you rather make a botulism strain with petri dishes and virii right here?

Would you rather grow castor plants here in the US where it's perfectly legal and extract the ricin, or import the ricin?

Hey let's not think about the obvious here. Let's convince the public that Iraqi UAVs are going to poison American cities and the smoking gun's going to come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

LMAO.

Scare tactics out the ass. The entire war rationale with the WMDs was a political tool and a public mindscrewing session. A dedicated team of terrorists could grab more WMDs out of this country than you could ever smuggle in from any country that had them and was handing them out to terrorists.

Very good points. Especially considering now "they" can just buy their assault weapons on arrival.

Originally posted by RANT

Very good points. Especially considering now "they" can just buy their assault weapons on arrival.

Not that I'm against assault weapons by any means, but look at what two domestic terrorists did with one piece of # car and a Bushmaster .223. They locked down three states for weeks and had the attention of every news source in the country.

Where exactly did you read the word 'Republican' in my post? [Or Democrat for that matter]

I mentioned a specific administration, The Bush administration and specific members of that administration, namely Rumsfeld and Cheney.

The term i used was right-wing hawks. But there are many of them, probably mostly Republican, but that is NOT necessarily to say that most Republicans are right-wing hawks. That is an assumption YOU made.

Are you telling me you think All/most Republicans are right-wing hawks?
That is actually quite telling on your part. If you are defensive about it, go lookin the mirror. Are you looking at a right-wing hawk? I don't know, that you will have to answer for yourself.

Again, to best understand one's options one should assess one's current situation accurately. Now repeat it so you can understand it The War with Iraq was a mistake. Now, see that wasn't so hard. I do NOT expect God like powers from the leadership of our country, But I absolutely expect everything Humanly possible is done to assess, comprehend, and plan intelligent actions for our nation to take.

Mistakes will happen. Not admitting them makes a Second mistake where only one existed before.
.

Originally posted by xpert11
By voting for the war in Iraq kerry dug himself a very deep hole which he is traped in and if he is voted into office he will suffocate in the hole. What has Kerry said that he will do differently to Bush if in office?
NOTHING concerning Iraq.
Unless Kerry commits more then words to Iraq it will be no better when he leaves the oval office (if hes voted into the whitehouse !)

The issue is that Bush has lost international credibility to actually make a cooperation plan work. He has stepped on to many toes to make that a serious reality. He was laughed out of the U.N. last September when he asked for cooperation and I doubt that the response will be any different today.

Kerry can wipe the slate clean and begin building a real coalition. I think that many countries will be willing to work with him over Bush.

-------edited---------

[edit on 21-9-2004 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by marg6043

No he didn�t he did it for the same believe as everybody else, because everybody else agreed that Sadam had MWDs, because bush administration lie and we the people of this country believe it and so everybody else that helped US, too bad now we don't look very reliable any more and neither our present president.

Marg....did you even read my post, on page one of this thread, about Clinton's statement when he was president? or did you not understand that when a democratic president was in office his administration was saying the same thing that this administration said?

*shakes head* Read again what Clinton, when he was president said about Iraq and wmd Marg...

When are people going to remember that UNSCOM, which was a group set up by the UN to investigate the allegations of Saddam/iraq having wmd, was one of the first ones to ever say that Iraq had, before the start of the war, wmd....what do you call the hundred or more engines and parts of banned missiles that were found by the UN to be in possesion of Iraq until at least March 2003?

What about the ballistic missiles, which were banned from Iraq and were not supposed to have, which were fired at the coalition at the start of this war?

12.45pm update
Iraq launches Scud missiles

Staff and agencies
Thursday March 20, 2003

The Iraqis today struck back in response to overnight bombing raids by coalition forces, firing Scud and other, smaller, missiles at the border area with northern Kuwait where US and British troops are massed, US and Kuwaiti officials said.

British and US troops in the region scrambled into gas masks and protective suits as warning sirens sounded and soldiers shouted "gas, gas, gas". Warning sirens sounded in the capital, Kuwait City, but no missiles hit the city.

Reuters reported that coalition troops appeared to have begun an artillery barrage from their location on the Iraq-Kuwait border into Iraq at about 2.45pm (1145 GMT).

Colonel Youssef al-Mullah, a spokesman for the Kuwaiti military, said that four Scud missiles had been fired at Kuwait today. However, a British spokesman at Camp As Sayliyah, Lt Col Ronnie McCourt, said that three missiles were fired by the Iraqis into Kuwait, including only one Scud, which was intercepted by a Patriot missile.

According to Col al-Mullah, one Scud was intercepted, and the rest fell in the north and in Kuwait Bay. Reuters reported that two Scuds hit, while another two were intercepted by US Patriot missiles.

The Iraqi information minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, responded by denying that Iraq had any Scud missiles, which were banned under the terms of the 1991 Gulf war ceasefire.

"I heard reports that we fired Scud missiles on Kuwait. I would like to tell you that we don't have Scud missiles, and why they were fired, I don't know," he told Reuters.

Excerpted from.
www.guardian.co.uk...

Even if only 4-5 were fired, those weapons were banned from Iraq, and if they had 4-5 they probably had more.

What is happening is that now everyone wants to blame one person, and one administration for the faults of the whole world, is pathetic really.

If you want to blame somebody blame the whole damn world, because everyone was saying that Saddam/Iraq had wmd even before Bush was in office...oh no wait, let me guess, Bush was president even when Clinton was in office? And Bush is also in charge of UNSCOM and the UN?

[edit on 21-9-2004 by Muaddib]

No he didn�t he did it for the same believe as everybody else, because everybody else agreed that Sadam had MWDs, because bush administration lie and we the people of this country believe it and so everybody else that helped US, too bad now we don't look very reliable any more and neither our present president.

Kerry had the same information that Bush had which said that Saddam had WMDs. It was not just intel from the U.S. It was also Russian and British intel, maybe Germany and other countries as well. You cannot blame Bush for misleading Kerry. Kerry saw the intel with his own eyes and spoke many times about what a threat Saddam was. As a matter of fact, in Dec. '03 Kerry was saying that anyone who didn't agree that Saddam needed to be removed didn't have the judgement to be President of the United States! Now he's saying that we shouldn't have removed Saddam. So, BY HIS OWN WORDS, he does NOT have the judgement to be President.

Kerry has a habit of changing his mind based on hindsight and what he thinks will get him the most votes. It is unbelievable to me how everyone wants to blame Bush and hold him accountable for things that he has done and yet those same people REFUSE to hold Kerry accountable for his constant change in positions. He contradicts himself every 30 days and yet you all think that's fine and dandy.

And if you really believe that Bush pushed Kerry into doing or believing something than that should tell you right there that Kerry is not enough of a man to make up his own mind or use his own judgement.

Jemison

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Who gives a crap if Saddam had WMD anyway. Even though it turned out he didn't, it's not like Iraq is the only place in the world to get WMDs.

A dedicated team of terrorists could grab more WMDs out of this country than you could ever smuggle in from any country that had them and was handing them out to terrorists.

You are talking about being illogical after spewing all that?

What is happening is quite simple. It is one of the worst part of the human condition, and it has been happening ever since the dawn of civilization.

Most people always try to find one person/organization/nation at fault, no matter if that person/organization/nation is innocent of the crimes or not. In this case, it doesn't matter to people that Bush and his administration were not the first ones, or only ones, to say all these things about Saddam/Iraq and its wmd program, and that if we had to use force we would do it.

Thousands of people have been killed because of this same reaction, and still continue being killed, many of these were probably innocent, but it doesn't matter to people I guess....

As i have said, is really pathetic, more so when in this dayandage we are supposedly, and in the overall, technologically advanced, more spiritually minded, and educated... *shakes head*

---edited to add comment---


[edit on 21-9-2004 by Muaddib]

You know, what it comes right down to is that we ARE in Iraq. We cannot turn back the clock. We should not waste time and energy on going around and around the same issues. If Kerry has a plan to FIX the situation, he should announce it. Last I heard (last night) he had a 4 point plan that he had announced, part of which involved the U.N. He just came out with that idea yesterday whereas while Kerry was just announcing his plan, Bush was in the process of DOING part of the plan.

The election is a month and a half away and I have NO idea who John Kerry is. Before he was the Democratic nominee I thought I knew him. I thought I knew his views on Saddam and Iraq. I actually kind of liked him. But in the last 9 months he has done nothing but change his mind, say how wrong other people were (even though he shared their opinion at the time but he never claims himself to have been wrong) and cry over spilled milk. And then when I look at his senate record and see how little there is of it, I realize that I can't even figure out who this person is based on the way he votes because he either a) doesn't vote or b) votes but then has some sort of disclaimer that goes along with it.

If Kerry would spend less time changing his views on the war in Iraq and more time trying to show the American public who he is and what his beliefs are, he might have a better chance of winning people over.

Jemison

Originally posted by keholmes

only an utter moron would believe that authorizing war and authorizing marines to go to a foreign country and use force are different...

You know, I actually agree with you, but that's not what I said. Since you think I'm a moron, propagandist, whatever, I'll do this slowly, one more time, just for you, so that you can understand my underdeveloped mind as it grinds through the drudgery of H.J. Res. 114.

The text of the final bill which passed congress is here:

thomas.loc.gov...:5:./temp/~c107XJIULU::

It states unequivocally what I said earlier:

AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

My assertion is that what Congress voted on was the AUTHORITY to use FORCE (our armed forces) as given to the President. (FYI he didn't really need their permission, of course, just the money.) Once permission was granted, our armed forces were used completely at the DISCRETION of George W Bush and his conscience. No president of this country should be without that discretion in times such as these, I agree!

What I am saying is that first off, it's stupid to say that Kerry voted "For the War" or even to "Authorize a War." He voted to say to the president, "Here's all of congress' support. Do what you have to."

This is where Bush's actions are indefensible. Two years later the insurgency is stronger, Al Qaeda is flourishing inside Iraq, and Retired Generals, republican leaders, and military analysts are all calling the war a "mistake" right along with John Kerry. Are you going to try and say that Kerry is responsible for the way this war has been run? Even if this war WAS necessary, which it wasn't, there is nobody to shoulder the blame about our military's imminent failure to secure the country except for George W. Bush. Of course, he won't, because it was such a "catastrophic success," this war.

How do you respond to this guy:

www.washingtonpost.com...

or these guys:

www.usatoday.com...

or the Army War College, surely they have no clue how a war is supposed to be fought. Silly college boys with their fancy city educations:

www.sfgate.com.../news/archive/2004/01/12/national2022EST0762.DTL

You continue to defend the management of this war based on some arbitrary statistics that you come up with yourself. As an alleged military man you seem to believe that the losses to this point are acceptable and that the war has not been mismanaged. I think that most of America, and indeed a majority of the legislature, intelligence, and military communities disagree with you, and that you and George Bush sound more and more out of touch with reality each time you say we are winning the war and that we will be fine if we stay the course.

Please feel free to refute this by calling me a moron again. I haven't seen you llink to a single news report that supports your assertion that I'm a moron, but there must be something out there.

No he didn�t he did it for the same believe as everybody else, because everybody else agreed that Sadam had MWDs, because bush administration lie and we the people of this country believe it and so everybody else that helped US, too bad now we don't look very reliable any more and neither our present president.

By voteing for the war in Iraq Kerry destoryed any creditability his criticisms of Bushs poilcy in Iraq might have. I call that a very deep hole. Now Kerry should focus on the failuare to find Bin Ladin.

Originally posted by xpert11

By voteing for the war in Iraq Kerry destoryed any creditability his criticisms of Bushs poilcy in Iraq might have.

Interesting spelling.

He didn't vote for war, he authorized US use of force IN CASE Iraq defied UN weapons inspections.

The UN weapons inspectors never said they were being kept from insepcting whatever they wanted.

Bush made the call that Iraq was hiding WMDs and invaded the country.

"President Bush tells us he would do it everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious?" he said.

"Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight."

"Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. That was not a reason to go to war. We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."

I now proclaim John Kerry:

Originally posted by oppodeldoc
You know, I actually agree with you, but that's not what I said. Since you think I'm a moron, propagandist, whatever, I'll do this slowly, one more time, just for you, so that you can understand my underdeveloped mind as it grinds through the drudgery of H.J. Res. 114.

you should actually re-read what you wrote�.you were splitting microns and attesting to what Kerry believed and I simply replied that if he did actually believe that he is a moron�if you have a guilty conscience that�s not my problem. So if you need to type slower then do so; you should probably try reading slower as well, it might help with comprehension.

AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

and I will state it again�as the bush administration was already claiming that previous UN resolutions gave them the necessary verbage. Anyone who voted for that and believed that it was not a resolution for war based on what the administration had already claimed is either: 1. a moron 2. Lying.

Originally posted by oppodeldoc
What I am saying is that first off, it's stupid to say that Kerry voted "For the War" or even to "Authorize a War." He voted to say to the president, "Here's all of congress' support. Do what you have to."

what are you fumbling about to say�.are you saying that he is actually stupid enough to think that bush was asking for military forces to police the next British soccer game. Or are you just trying to say that Kerry thought that he was voting for the president to just have the power to go to war and that he knew he wouldn�t, before he voted for it, he voted against it, before he thought it was wrong, after he voted for it, prior to not supporting it? Oh my.

Originally posted by oppodeldoc
Are you going to try and say that Kerry is responsible for the way this war has been run?

no, but if its successful I�m sure he will be.

Originally posted by oppodeldoc
www.washingtonpost.com...

�����

I don�t answer any of those folks, as it is not my positon to. I only have to look in history books and see that in WW2, WW1, revolutionary war and several other historical military conquests all of the backseat drivers decried that new military tatics were destined to failure�..were they right in some cases yes, in others warfare was changed as the world new it. Will this new military tactic of relying on smaller force with a larger percentage to be specialized and highly trained troops, relying on mobility to island hop in a sense, and air-superiority to deliver overwhelming withdrawal cover, be successful? I don�t know if it will be successful, only time will tell. However it doesn�t surprise me that a new tactic has met with resistance they have since the beginning of time. What I pointed out is that when you compare the causalities of this conflict with others conflicts, the rate is comparatively speaking good�..not that I�m saying any causalities are good but that the rate is lower than any other conflict that I calculated, since back in the revolutionary war times. And you can see that by doing the math, maybe you can get that guy from the trailer park school to show you that new stuff called math.

Originally posted by oppodeldoc
I haven't seen you llink to a single news report that supports your assertion that I'm a moron, but there must be something out there.

Still can�t figure out how to help you with that guilty conscience.

quote]Originally posted by Jemison
You know, what it comes right down to is that we ARE in Iraq. We cannot turn back the clock. We should not waste time and energy on going around and around the same issues. If Kerry has a plan to FIX the situation, he should announce it.

Cop-out. The situation will be "fixed" when it is rendered impossible for the President of the USA to embark on a self-serving and illegal invasion of a sovereign nation based on fraudulent intelligence.

Originally posted by taibunsuu

He didn't vote for war, he authorized US use of force IN CASE Iraq defied UN weapons inspections.

The UN weapons inspectors never said they were being kept from inspecting whatever they wanted. Bush made the call that Iraq was hiding WMDs and invaded the country.

A series of simple statements of what really happened can illuminate a topic far more than pages of hot air and rhetoric.

Please VOTE FOR CHIMP BUSH BUSH OR CHIMP

PLEASE REGISTER AND VOTE FOR BUSH

Meanwhile Mexicans will be invading your country, your health care will be in the doldrums, Haliburton will make lots of money, We Mexico Canada and Venezuela will be selling a barrel for over 40 usd$ Yeee hhahaaaa,,,,, while your TAx dollars are spent on a lost war.....

Remember 4 easy letters B U S H THE NUCULEAR PRESIDENT!

Care to rebate my data....? Flame on republicans...

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar

Originally posted by taibunsuu

He didn't vote for war, he authorized US use of force IN CASE Iraq defied UN weapons inspections.

The UN weapons inspectors never said they were being kept from inspecting whatever they wanted. Bush made the call that Iraq was hiding WMDs and invaded the country.

A series of simple statements of what really happened can illuminate a topic far more than pages of hot air and rhetoric.

Simple statements for��.unfortunately it�s not what happened.

Originally posted by oppodeldoc

AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

I don�t see �in case� anywhere as a matter of fact, I see �as he determines to be necessary and appropriate� anybody that doesn�t understand that the wording of this puts the president as the sole arbiter of whether 1 & 2 are��well they probably would just like a simple statement much more.