If Bush lied why would Kerry say this?

[CHARLESMANSON]

"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?" ----Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), October 9, 2002

Congressional Record ? Sen. John F. Kerry


Hey liberals --- why would Kerry say this??? (These answers outta be good)

 

[Englishman]

The liberals won't respond to this, save your breath. This is for the same reason they don't comment on left-wing rubbish about how SS is OK, and "not in crisis" after Mr. Lockbox himself ran on the issue in 2000 and Clinton spent one whole year in 1999 trying to get Congress to do something about the "looming crisis in SS".

All Clinton's and Gore's warnings are on the record, if you care to look.

Logic confounds the liberals.

 

[StevieD]

Englishman, you like to point out that Clinton wanted to fix SS but now the Dems do not want to. Yoiu seem to forget that when Clinton wanted to fix it we not only had a surplus but it was the Republicans that were against it.

 

[The Judge]

This quote is from October 2002; not during the campaign.

 

[StevieD]

Charles, I am against what we did in Iraq and I don't care who said what. You seem to be for it because a Neocon wanted it and now you go to great lengths to show that liberals wanted it to. I am against anyone who said they would do what Bush did and I don't care who or what they are.
It is like that Englishman saying that Clinton wanted to fix ss. He doesn't mention that the republicans were against it then. It ought to be good to hear him explain it.

 

[ferdville]

How exactly did Cllinton propose "fixing" social security? And how exactly did the Republicans keep it from happening? I must have missed most of that. However, Bush's plan for SS sounds great on paper but would simply throw us deeper in the hole, in my opinion.

 

[StevieD]

Clinton wanted to put the surplus into SS as I understand it but the Republicans didn't want to do it then. And I agree with you about Bush's plan.

 

[BobbyBlueChip]

.....

 

[djv]

Yes Clinton wanted surplus to go to Medicare and S/S. But some one used the surplus up in a tax cut that was just to big. Also
Gore said lock it up so no one can take from the trust fund anymore. But congress would not do that either. So it's one thing to say it's in trouble. It's another to say the trouble is still years away and congress causes it. Not you and me. Yes
S/S can use some work. Do we have other more important areas that need help right now. You bet.

 

[ferdville]

I don't know if there are too many things in this country more important that making sure SS is fixed. People have worked all their lives hoping that this lifeline is there for them. What is going to happen when it isn't there? The government will end up paying one way or another,won't it?

 

[CHARLESMANSON]

So that's it? No liberals could explain Kerry's statements huh?...but you guys voted for him right?.....and accused the president of "lying"????? cmon what's up with that oke



I posted this thread 4 days ago and come back to see that the only excuse you liberals can come up with about John Kerry's statement was that it was ok for him to "lie" about Iraq posessing WMD's because "it was not during the election campaign"....good one judge lol. :mj07:

So I guess what judge is saying is that John Kerry also thought Iraq had WMD's but changed his mind once he was named the democratic presidential nominee???.....gee that's some good honest leadership if I've even seen it!!! lol :142smilie

 

[kosar]

It's been answered dozens of times, Manson. Out of all the people who were wrong about Iraq, only one of them sent 1500, and counting, soldiers to their grave. Not to mention the 9 or 10 thousand, and counting, that have come home maimed. He highlighted information from the CIA that showed possible WMD and out and out did not want to see, let alone consider, evidence to the contrary.

If you think that it was worth it, so be it.

The 'lie' comes in when he tried to asscociate the invasion with 9/11. IOW, although he still would have loved to attack Iraq, without 9/11 it wouldn't have happened. It was his perfect excuse and that's sick.

 

[CHARLESMANSON]

The 'lie' comes in when he tried to asscociate the invasion with 9/11. .

Then why during the election campaigns did the John Kerrys, the John Edwards, the Ted Kennedys, the Barbara Boxers, the Howard Deans and every other liberal loony say that...

"This president lied about WMD's"???

Damn, Kerry's ENTIRE campaign was based on "Bush lying about WMD's"!!!!!!!


You didn't follow the campaigns did you? You cannot "un-say" what has already been said Kosar. All of your liberal leaders in Washington also said Saddam had WMDs.

Scroll up again and read what Kerry said......he said Saddam was pursuing nukes!!! He said Saddam was deceiving the inspectors!!!! ......Why would Kerry say this???? Can you please just answer that one question???

9-11 or no 9-11, NOT attacking Iraq would have been a crime based on John Kerry's above statements right????

 

[kosar]

Scroll up again and read what Kerry said......he said Saddam was pursuing nukes!!! He said Saddam was deceiving the inspectors!!!! ......Why would Kerry say this???? Can you please just answer that one question???

The answer to your question is that Kerry believed it to be true.

No, it wouldn't have been a crime not to have attacked. Every country in the world is pursuing nukes. Our intelligence is/was an embarrassment, but even 'they' said that in the worst case scenario, Saddam was a long way from nukes.

We were concerned about chemical and bio weapons much more than nukes.

It's 'funny'. The same CIA that gave 'alarming' info *before* the war puts out a report *after* the invasion that confirms the UN Inspectors contentions that Saddam has not had a WMD program, or WMD since 1991. WTF?

Very strange, if you think about it, and virtually proves that Bush was quite selective in what he chose to believe because of his hard on for Saddam.

So, lying about WMD? Maybe not technically, but he saw what he wanted to see. Not sure if that's exactly lying, but it's close.

 

[BobbyBlueChip]

The last time you posted this thread, I showed you the whole Kerry speech that you took this time. It's as if he had today's paper. You ignored my comments then and I would suspect you'll ignore them now. Just in case you've learned how to read since then . . .

http://madjacksports.com/forum/showthread.php?t=164064&highlight=kerry

 

[CHARLESMANSON]

Yeah...you know you're right Bobby...I stand corrected......

OOPS!! wait...what have we here???

---"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"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."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"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 ... 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."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002


---Let me know if you want me to source this info Bobby ok? lol...take care

 

[BobbyBlueChip]

Yes, please post sources and the speeches in the entirety. Thanks in advance.