Replies

An Interview With Bill Clinton (The Atlantic Monthly ^ | March 2003 | James Fallows)

But I'm pretty sure this is the right thing to do. Press ahead with this thing, try to.... we knew when we did the bombing in '98 that we hit all the known or suspected sites based on the intelligence we had, from all the people that were doing that work there. we knew at the time that we had set his program back a couple years. But sooner or later in the millennium the new Administration, whether it was Gore's or Bush's, would have to take this matter up again.

Flashback! Excerpt from Kerry on CrossFire in 1997 (Kerry RIPS into France, et al)(CrossFire (excerpts only from Lexis-Nexis - fair use, public comments) | 11/12/97)

SEN. JOHN KERRY, (D), MASSACHUSETTS, FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE: Well, John, you're correct that this resolution is less than we would have liked. I don't think anybody can deny that we would have liked it to have threatened force and we would have liked it to carry the term serious consequences will flow. On the other hand, the coalition is together. I mean the fact is there is a unanimous statement by the security council and the United Nations that there has to be immediate, unrestricted, unconditional access to the sites. That's very strong language. And it also references the underlying resolution on which the use of force is based. So clearly the allies may not like it, and I think that's our great concern -- where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity, but in a sense, they're now climbing into a box and they will have enormous difficulty not following up on this if there is not compliance by Iraq.
[snip]
KERRY: Well, John, there's absolutely no statement that they have made or that they will make that will prevent the United States of America and this president or any president from acting in what they believe are the best interests of our country. And obviously it's disappointing. It was disappointing a month ago not to have the French and the Russians understanding that they shouldn't give any signals of weakening on the sanctions and I think those signals would have helped bring about this crisis because they permitted Saddam Hussein to interpret that maybe the moment was right for him to make this challenge.
SUNUNU: But isn't what he has seen is a loss of U.S. leadership and an erosion under an administration that has failed to lead?
KERRY: On the contrary. The administration is leading. The administration is making it clear that they don't believe that they even need the U.N. Security Council to sign off on a material breach because the finding of material breach was made by Mr. Butler. So furthermore, I think the United States has always reserved the right and will reserve the right to act in its best interests. And clearly it is not just our best interests, it is in the best interests of the world to make it clear to Saddam Hussein that he's not going to get away with a breach of the '91 agreement that he's got to live up to, which is allowing inspections and dismantling his weapons and allowing us to know that he has dismantled his weapons. That's the price he pays for invading Kuwait and starting a war.
[snip]
KERRY: Correct, absolutely correct, and I believe, and they stood with us today and I am saying to you that it is my judgment that by standing with us today and calling for the unrestricted, unconditional, unlimited, you know, access, they have now taken a stand that they are duty bound to enforce and if Saddam Hussein doesn't do that, the president, I think, has begun a process which you remember very well, John, was not done in one week, in one day, in one month. It took months to weave together the fabric to lead up to an understanding of what was at stake. I am convinced that many people have not yet even focused in full measure on what is at stake.

"a) because he posed an imminent threat to U.S. security,
b) on humanitarian grounds,
c) because he possessed weapons of mass destruction
d) because he was linked to Al Queda?"

"Sometimes it was one of the above, sometimes two, sometimes all the above."

Wait a minute. When was it ever just "one", or just "two" of those reasons? All those reasons were cited from the very beginning. To claim it would have been just one or just two at any point would have required an actual disavowal of the others. That's bull. It always was all 4 reasons. Just because every single conversation didn't include all 4 points, because they each were large complex issues that required a great deal more detail than could be assimilated in a single hearing, does not mean that the other issues became inoperative.

That was a just plain silly argument.

And by the way, your a) is yet another liberal propaganda lie. No one ever said Saddam was an "imminent threat". Bush specifically said we cannot WAIT for him to become an imminent threat in his State of the Union speech, but liberals CONSTANTLY lie and claim otherwise, just as they lie about a tremendous number of other realities. That would be a big part of why they are so vastly detested around these parts. Continue perpetuating those lies and you will likely receive the same lack of respect, but only cause you earned it the same way they did.

Qwinn

It wasn't just one reason, it was a lot of reasons. The thing is you obviously don't believe any reason for removing Hussein was justified even his violation of U.N. resolution 1441. Here's what I believe (1) Hussein was a huge supporter of international terrorism (2) he had weapons of mass destruction that he planned to use against us and our friends (3) he was committed to destablizing the mideast (4) he murdered and tortured hundreds of thousands of his own citizens (5) he tried to assassinate George H. Bush (6) there is a high probability he was connected to the bombing in Oklahoma City PLUS involvement with the WTC bombings (read Laurie Mylroie and Steven Hayes) (7) the attempt to install democracy in Iraq could change the face of the whole Muslem world and lastly (8) a number of middle east governments like Lybya have concluded that discretion is the better part of valor. In short following through with the hostilities is having a nice deterrent effect on other mideast malcontents. A democratic Iraq could have beneficial consequences for the whole Islamic world.

In summary there were plenty of reasons to remove him. His continued existence as ruler of Iraq was a serious threat to our security and that of our friends. That's enough for me. And the fact that you think things are looking grim reveals a lot. Did you think things were grim when we were "bogged down" in the sandstorm in the first week of the war?