John Kerry is as much of a traitor as Nancy Pelosi and should be treated as such.
2007-06-24 09:31:04
·
answer #1
·
answered by koalatcomics 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, maybe he should have listened to the George Bush Sr.
In his memoirs, A World Transformed, written more than five years ago, George Bush, Sr. wrote the following to explain why he didn't go after Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War:
"Trying to eliminate Saddam .. would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ...there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
2007-06-24 08:00:12
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
LEHRER: New question, two minutes, Senator Kerry.
"Colossal misjudgments." What colossal misjudgments, in your opinion, has President Bush made in these areas?
KERRY: Well, where do you want me to begin?
First of all, he made the misjudgment of saying to America that he was going to build a true alliance, that he would exhaust the remedies of the United Nations and go through the inspections.
In fact, he first didn't even want to do that. And it wasn't until former Secretary of State Jim Baker and General Scowcroft and others pushed publicly and said you've got to go to the U.N., that the president finally changed his mind -- his campaign has a word for that -- and went to the United Nations.
Now, once there, we could have continued those inspections.
We had Saddam Hussein trapped.
He also promised America that he would go to war as a last resort.
Those words mean something to me, as somebody who has been in combat. "Last resort." You've got to be able to look in the eyes of families and say to those parents, "I tried to do everything in my power to prevent the loss of your son and daughter."
I don't believe the United States did that.
And we pushed our allies aside.
Our Call
Analysis and video excerpt
Your Call
Reader's forum
And so, today, we are 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the cost: $200 billion -- $200 billion that could have been used for health care, for schools, for construction, for prescription drugs for seniors, and it's in Iraq.
And Iraq is not even the center of the focus of the war on terror. The center is Afghanistan, where, incidentally, there were more Americans killed last year than the year before; where the opium production is 75 percent of the world's opium production; where 40 to 60 percent of the economy of Afghanistan is based on opium; where the elections have been postponed three times.
KERRY: The president moved the troops, so he's got 10 times the number of troops in Iraq than he has in Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden is. Does that mean that Saddam Hussein was 10 times more important than Osama bin Laden -- than, excuse me, Saddam Hussein more important than Osama bin Laden? I don't think so.
2007-06-24 08:07:43
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
particular, all of Congress suggested that, after the President (Bush) advised anybody that he had information that Hussein did. the reason for his concept? while the Iraq government grow to be at conflict with Iran, in case you undergo in techniques, the U. S. provided Iraq with those weapons. the U. S. grow to be backing Iraq and the Russians have been featuring the Iranians. Iran had captured the U. S. Embassy and held them hostage for over a year...do you bear in mind that? the U. S. hated Iran for that and hence provided Iraq, in an attempt to over throw the Iranian government. besides after the conflict grow to be over, the U. S. "assumed" that Iraq nonetheless had each and each of the weapons that the U. S. had given them, not understanding that the Iraq government had the two used them for the period of the conflict or have been destroyed by utilizing the Iranians. So, Bush's motives for attacking Iraq, have been incorrect. did not have the information then and don't have it now.
2016-09-28 09:43:26
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
There is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats. They are working together to further the agenda of PNAC. They pretend like there is a difference by throwing up wedge issues to distract voters.
Of course John Kerry said this, that is not surprising at all. Both parties wanted this war.
2007-06-24 08:00:53
·
answer #5
·
answered by Stephanie is awesome!! 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Yes. Do you remember what Bush Jr said before the war?
"British intelligence has found strong evidence, suggesting that Iraq is attempting to purchase yellowcake (uranium) in Niger"
What Bush failed to mention was that the CIA told him that the document was a fraud.
edit: This questioner must not have received the memo that 0ver 90% the WMD was demolished by the inspectors and they suspected that the rest that was thought to be missing had been expended.
2007-06-24 07:59:45
·
answer #6
·
answered by Chi Guy 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
John Kerry was wrong.
2007-06-24 08:03:09
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Oh, is John Kerry running again? or are you still trying to justify why you voted for a moron twice?
2007-06-24 08:01:22
·
answer #8
·
answered by PD 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
cause he looked at all the bs intelligence that was given to him by the Bush admin.
2007-06-24 08:20:29
·
answer #9
·
answered by go 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_CepS8u9wQ&NR
it's in the video.
2007-06-24 08:04:00
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋