Un-Believeable!!!




John Kerry, Bush's Advisor On Iraq
by David Freddoso
Posted Mar 16, 2004




Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) has been all over the map on the topic of the Iraq War. In October 2002, he voted for the Iraq war resolution. Later, assaulted from his left on the campaign trail, he changed his mind, declaring that the U.S. should not have invaded Iraq, even stating that Bush "rushed to war against our warnings."



On September 6, 2002, Kerry laid out a very specific plan for dealing with Iraq in an op-ed in the New York Times. And looking back now at that op-ed, it almost appears that Bush took his advice, step by step, through the entire process.


So what did Kerry suggest? On September 6, 2002, he wrote: "For the sake of our country, the legitimacy of our cause and our ultimate success in Iraq, the administration must seek advice and approval from Congress, laying out the evidence and making the case."

This the administration did, and it received the support of Kerry and most others in Congress.

"Then," Kerry continued, "in concert with our allies, [the administration] must seek full enforcement of the existing cease-fire agreement from the United Nations Security Council."

Again, exactly what Bush did in November 2002 by bringing resolution 1441 to the Security Council, giving Iraq a full four months to disarm completely and give inspectors proof thereof. The resolution passed unanimously.

Kerry's advice continued: "We should at the same time offer a clear ultimatum to Iraq before the world: Accept rigorous inspections without negotiation or compromise. Some in the administration actually seem to fear that such an ultimatum might frighten Saddam Hussein into cooperating."

This ultimatum was given, and at first Saddam appeared to blink. UN Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix and his team returned to Iraq.

But they did not receive cooperation "without negotiation or compromise." To the contrary, as The New York Times reported on January 31, 2003: "Mr. Blix reiterated his report's key finding that Iraq had not provided anything like the wholehearted cooperation he needed to certify that Saddam Hussein was not concealing nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. His concern about Iraq's attitude, he said, led him to refrain from explicitly asking for more time for inspections when he reported to the Security Council on Monday."

Even Blix, no fan of the war, knew at that point that the inspection process had failed, in spite of Hussein's public destruction of a few missiles he supposedly never had to begin with. In the following weeks, Hussein even made new demands of the UN--in other words, "negotiation and compromise," anathema to the Kerry plan.

But Kerry had foreseen this possiblity as well: "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."

And wouldn't you know it, that's exactly how things unfolded. Before any vote had been taken, unilateralist John Kerry had already endorsed everything Bush ended up doing, from start to finish.



The entire article here:
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=3290

Liberals won't acknowledge this because after all, Bush is the one full of crap in their eyes :rolleyes:

I think you are right.

I think the libs are having some second thoughts about the guy they've just nominated.

This is just the beginning of the exposing of his statements and record and it's already pretty ugly for him.


Something for the libs to consider. At least with Bush you know what you are getting, agree or not. Who the hell really knows what you are getting with Kerry? What are his core values and principles in which he makes his decisions on? It appears none and is nothing more than an opportunist who will say anything at the time that will garner him the most votes.
That is dangerous.

There is quite a bit of material about Kerry that the left wing, dominant media is still not exposing. I heard tonight that in Kerry's more radical days as a member of that anti-American, Vietnam Veterans against War organization, they actually had meetings on which Senator to assasinate who supported the effort to liberate Vietnam from the filthy, murderous commies. These commies supposedly called it The Phoenix Project. If this information is true, shouldn't Kerry be locked up?

checks source (hmm)...checks poster (aha)

Are you stating that Human Events is lying about Kerry's op-ed from Sept 6/02?

Is that the best you can do?

No, I'm saying that it's a biased source, and it's opinion.

Clinging to biased sources, and ignoring the main ones seems to be your cup of tea.

So what if it is a biased source?

If the information is accurate what is the problem?

Are you disputing Kerry stated those words?

What do you consider a non biased source?

What exactly is YOUR problem here?

How is the information accurate?

My problem here is you. I won't suffer a little warning about "personal attacks", but a person I know here is absolutely uneducated, and unreasonably biased. I've debated with so many conservatives who can hold their own, but this one is absolutely pathetic. He posts non-stop propaganda-hoping to drown out opposition, and further his tired motives.

I loathe even debating with the likes of him anymore.

How is the information accurate?

So you dispute that Kerry wrote the OP-ED and made those statements and that Human Events, and in turn me, is lying about all of this?

Is that what you are saying?

Yes or No?

Lets be very clear here Volconvo, if you can.

Lets try to stick to the subject of the thread.


My problem here is you.


Why do you object to me posting information about John Kerry, his voting records, statements, and flip-flops?



I won't suffer a little warning about "personal attacks", but a person I know here is absolutely uneducated, and unreasonably biased.


Who would that be?

I've debated with so many conservatives who can hold their own, but this one is absolutely pathetic. He posts non-stop propaganda-hoping to drown out opposition, and further his tired motives.

Who would that be?

I loathe even debating with the likes of him anymore.

Maybe you just don't have what it takes to debate him. Maybe you are way, way, out of your league and just resort to getting angry and frustrated.
Maybe you CANT address the subject matter in the threads this person posts so you have to sink to the gutter and try to change the subject.
I'd bet on it.

Nah, sorry to burst your bubble, but I know I'm not the one who's out of my league. Seeing 9000+ posts tells me one thing-this is all you've got.

Why just today I had a nice long discussion with my manager about gun ownership. He's an nra card-wielding member, and I'm pretty anti-gun.

It went on for about an hour, and we both provided great perspectives.

The difference was that we didn't try to drown each other out with sources that only one of us could relate to (SOMECONSERVATIVE.com). Oh wait, he did it once or twice, but I corrected him, and he realized that he was probably not getting his info from the right areas, and could do a better job at proving his case.

LOLOL.

Why won't you answer my questions Volconvo?

Why are you diverting, yet again?

Trust me, this all tells us more about you than it does about me.

For the record.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10910F63E5A0C758CDDA00894DA4044 82

We Still Have a Choice on Iraq

September 6, 2002
By JOHN F. KERRY


For the sake of our country, the legitimacy of our cause
and our ultimate success in Iraq, the administration must
seek advice and approval from Congress, laying out the
evidence and making the case. Then, in concert with our
allies, it must seek full enforcement of the existing
cease-fire agreement from the United Nations Security
Council. We should at the same time offer a clear ultimatum
to Iraq before the world: Accept rigorous inspections
without negotiation or compromise. Some in the
administration actually seem to fear that such an ultimatum
might frighten Saddam Hussein into cooperating. 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. But until we have
properly laid the groundwork and proved to our fellow
citizens and our allies that we really have no other
choice, we are not yet at the moment of unilateral
decision-making in going to war against Iraq.


John F. Kerry, a Democrat, is a senator from
Massachusetts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/06/opinion/06KERR.html?ex=1032312456&ei=1&en=930a8857e0bbb35c



Is the NY Times a biased source Volconvo?
Perhaps you should take your issue up with the right wing fanatics at the NY Times.

:rofl: :rofl:

^enough with the condescending :rolleyes:

The NY times is stating that Kerry supported a war with Iraq (we all know this as fact), the article you have is trying to make Kerry sound like he's no different from Bush. This is a very different argument, and it's a flawed one that didn't make it to mainstream media for a reason.

It's opinion from a conservative newspaper. That was my point.

So the cons like Kerry now?

Originally posted by Volconvo
^enough with the condescending :rolleyes:

LOL. After your repeated ignoring of the subject and attacking me.... You've got nerve.

The NY times is stating that Kerry supported a war with Iraq (we all know this as fact), the article you have is trying to make Kerry sound like he's no different from Bush. This is a very different argument, and it's a flawed one that didn't make it to mainstream media for a reason.

No. It is Kerrys WORD from an OP ED that he wrote.
Its pretty clear that Bush Followed Kerry's advice.

THAT IS THE POINT.

It's opinion from a conservative newspaper. That was my point.

The opinion from the conservative newspaper is factual.
Bush followed Kerry's advice. He did exactly what Kerry stated in his op ed.

This is not difficult.

For goodness sake when will the looney tune right get it through their skulls Iraq was a big bloody mistake.
We cant afford it, we were wrong about WMD, we didnt have a plan for post combat, and now over over 700 have paid with their lives.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4557891/

"Things have not worked out that way, for the most part. There is evidence that the economic lives of Iraqis are improving, thanks to an infusion of U.S. and foreign capital. But the administration badly underestimated the financial cost of the occupation and seriously overstated the ease of pacifying Iraq and the warmth of the reception Iraqis would give the U.S. invaders. And while peace and democracy may yet spread through the region, some early signs are that the U.S. action has had the opposite effect.

Much of the focus on prewar expectations vs. postwar reality has been on the failure to find weapons of mass destruction. But while that was the central justification for the war in Iraq, the administration also made a wide range of claims about the ease of the invasion and the benefits that would result. Though comparisons between expectations and results are complex, it appears that the administration, based on limited human intelligence and conversations with a small corps of Iraqi exiles, was overly optimistic. "

Originally posted by Volconvo
How is the information accurate?

My problem here is you. I won't suffer a little warning about "personal attacks", but a person I know here is absolutely uneducated, and unreasonably biased. I've debated with so many conservatives who can hold their own, but this one is absolutely pathetic. He posts non-stop propaganda-hoping to drown out opposition, and further his tired motives.

I loathe even debating with the likes of him anymore.

then why do you respond to him? Why not prove him wrong... I mean it was Kerry's own words. Why not just put him on ignore?

Why is he uneducated? What makes you or anyone else more educated?

:rolleyes: