Posted on 09/24/2004 8:48:05 AM PDT by conservativecorner
During a 1997 debate on CNN's "Crossfire," Sen. John Kerry, now the Democratic presidential nominee, made the case for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq. So reveals Rep. Peter King, New York Republican, who appeared with Mr. Kerry on the program. Mr. King says the U.N. Security Council had just adopted a resolution against Iraq that was watered down at the behest of the French and the Russians. Yet the candidate who now criticizes President Bush for ignoring French and Russian objections to the Iraq war blasted the two countries, claiming that they were compromised by their business dealings with Baghdad. "We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians," said Mr. Kerry. "We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest." While no "Crossfire" transcripts from 1997 are available, Mr. King in recent days produced a tape of the show, sharing it with New York radio host Monica Crowley for broadcast, and this Inside the Beltway column for publication. Stay tuned.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Before he argued against it. Is he a schizophrenic, that would splain a lot?
"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians," said Mr. Kerry. "We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."
If Kerry is actually on tape saying that, we should hammer the media to play it over and over.
Which way is the wind blowing ? There you'll find hanoi john's positions.
Yes, but that was when a Democrat was in the White House. That makes all the difference.
Someone should copy this on the DU forum and prove to them that their 'candidate' has and does continue to 'flip/flop'.
Ping me to the link! I love to read the whaling and gnashing of teeth over there when they have to try and call a flip flop a consistent position. The lengths they will go to are unreal.
More on this :
http://www.polipundit.com/
...the candidate who now criticizes President Bush for ignoring French and Russian objections to the Iraq war blasted the two countries, claiming that they were compromised by their business dealings with Baghdad.
I wonder what happened to the transcripts?
Or course he did. There is no mystery here...there was a DEMOCRAT in the White House. When Bush Sr. wanted to liberate Kuwait from a thug dictator that was attempting to control middle east oil, Kerry voted NO...because there was a REPBULICAN in the White House....
If that statement is on tape, it is perfect material for the next Republican ad.
If only they could run that clip in Prime Time, it would be game,set and match.
Kerry said on that show that Clinton would be showing leadership to defend the US and deal with Iraq REGARDLESS OF THE UN.
Why the RNC isn't using this film clip in a commercial is a mystery.
Perhaps they are keeping their powder dry. Patience.
I hope you're right. If they don't use the tape in a commercial they are missing a golden opportunity.
At the least, the president should have the exact quotes from '97 memorized for the debates.
Sounds like a fine ad will be on the way.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/
SEN JOHN KERRY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Essentially, yes. I'm not sure exactly what Joe means by that, but I think we ought to put the heat on Saddam Hussein. I've said that for a number of years, Bill. I criticized the Clinton administration for backing off of the inspections, when Ambassador Butler was giving us strong evidence that we needed to continue. I think we need to put the pressure on, no matter what the evidence is about September 11, but I think we have to do it in a thoughtful and intelligent way. O'REILLY: Which is what? I mean, look, you know the guy -- the guy is simply -- he's an out of control guy. KERRY: Absolutely. O'REILLY: And he's not going to respond to embargoes, no-fly zones. He's not going to do that. How would you put enough pressure on him to open up inspections again? KERRY: Well, I'd reinvigorate that process as step number one. And I think the administration is now suddenly starting to move in that direction. I think you have to work our allies sufficiently to pull that component of the effort back together. But the second thing I would do, and I wouldn't hesitate to do it, is back opposition more openly and do it in a way that begins to put a counter insurgency in the country itself. O'REILLY: So what do you do? Drop heavy weapons to the Kurds in the north and to Muslims who don't like him in the south? KERRY: Bill, let me tell you, I was all for our following through at the end of the Gulf War with the Kurd uprising. And I thought it was a great betrayal, in a sense, that we encouraged them verbally. We gave them forces. We gave them weapons. We encouraged them and said we were with them. And then we pulled out at the last minute because the Kuwaitis and the Saudis and others were unsure of what might follow. O'REILLY: Yes, that was a classic mistake. But if you arm the Kurds in the north of Iraq, you're going to alienate one of our most valuable -- KERRY: I didn't say necessarily the Kurds. There are other members of the opposition. There are people who are outside the country prepared to go in. There are others inside the country. And I believe -- I mean, I was in Safwan. I went there when the signing of the armistice took place at the end of the war. And I remember seeing that land, which lent itself in my judgment, considerably to the creation of almost an enclave, which I thought we should have done then. And I think is one way to begin to approach things now, but there are other possibilities. The important thing is that Saddam Hussein and the world knows that we think Saddam Hussein is essentially out of sync with the times. He is and has acted like a terrorist. And he is engaged in activities that are unacceptable.
What's so amazing is the glib arrogance of the man, after voting against the war, that he casts himself as an expert in the field. How does he support that? By claiming to have been there at the signing of the cease-fire and talked with all sides.
Regarding the time frame, CQ reader Rod S writes this:
March 2, 2001 10PM Boston is March 3, 2001 6AM Baghdad (not Safwan, but ''close enough") time.
The Iraqi delegation arrived at Safwan at 11:30 AM and the meeting lasted two hours.
Baghdad is about 6000 miles ESE of Boston as the crow flies — the air route is no doubt longer. If Kerry left the soiree at 10PM Boston time, he would have had to make the trip to Safwan in about seven (7) hours to make the signing. The "crows" would have to average better than 850 mph.
To put it mildly, BALDERDASH!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.