Posted on 10/07/2004 7:03:35 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Banking on the collective memory loss of the American people or the fact that no one outside the beltway generally cares what politicians think or say, they each made shameless attempts -- consciously or unconsciously -- to distance themselves from some of their own statements made in recent years on the issue of Iraq and its leader's threat to the international community.
In a foreign policy speech on January 23, 2003 at Georgetown University, Sen. John Kerry stated cleary why he believed Saddam Hussein was a menace to society. "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime..."
"...and now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."
Kerry went on to say that the threat of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is not new, but that "it had been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."
If Kerry believed this a year ago, why is he attacking President Bush today FOR THE VERY SAME THING THAT HE BELIEVED SUCH A SHORT TIME AGO?
(Excerpt) Read more at humaneventsonline.com ...
John Kerry, in my opinion, is a political opportunist, who will say practically anything at any time to get him himself elected.
Just thought that I would remind voters of what Kerry said then, so people could compare it with what he is saying now before they go to the polls.
The wind was blowing from the southwest on that day.
Then it was blowing from the east.
Kerry the Weatherman.
What do you think of Kerry's statements then and now?
Is he a political opportunist? Why wont he admit that he pretty much believed the same thing as President Bush, concerning saddam Hussein and WMD"s in Iraq, just a year ago.
In my opinion, Kerry believes that President Bush should be "fired" because, apparently, Bush was wrong on WMD"s being in Iraq. Yet the same intelligence from the British the Russians, the CIA and others, stating that Saddam had WMDs, Bush Kerry and others apparently believed in.
So what... Kerry believed that Saddam needed to be removed, as did Bush, and what if Bush hadn't have given the go-ahead for the toppling of Saddam, and Saddam had nukes or chemical agents and those WMD's had gotten in the hands of terrorists? Would Kerry now be saying that Bush miscalculated and should be "fired" for not invading Iraq?
One day, holding up all fingers on your right hand equals "4". The next day, it could equal "3". It all depends on Big Brother's whims...
Kerry, 'Finger in the Wind' Weatherman?
People need to see Kerry's flip-flops. The BIG MEDIA isn't doing its job.
Therefore I, and others, post.
BUMP!
Everybody should read the Duelfer Summary. What Saddam was up to is quite damning.
Key Findings (Duelfer Report): Sanctions Had Collapsed by end of 1999
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1238122/posts
Key Findings (Duelfer Report): Iraqi Intelligence Had WMD, Tested on Humans
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1237962/posts
ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations.
[snip]
• The existence, function, and purpose of the laboratories were never declared to the UN.
• The IIS program included the use of human subjects for testing purposes.
Serious question, I hope someone knows: How much was the containment of Saddam costing us? How much to maintain the no-flight zone and keep our presence up? How long were we supposed to do that?
Two words: "memory hole"
Ditto!
Forget the summary of the ISG report, look at the actual 1000 page report.
What's amazing about this article is it perpetuates the lie that "no weapons of mass destruction have been found" by the ISG, but the ISG report, volume 3, page 30, on the CIA website, states that 53 chemical weapons have been found including 41 122mm rockets at a single site containing sarin/cyclosarin. I think I must be having a bad dream. AP lead story is "Bush admits no WMDs in Iraq" and the fact is there was an actual STOCKPILE, 41 weapons found.
Because Kerry is a lying, backstabbing, flip-flopping, two-faced political opportunist.
Other than that he's a pretty nice guy.
Oh, I agree, brookwood1. I've felt all along that there are WMDs, but where these are remains to be discovered.
"Not finding" does not equate to "not in existence."
It's worse than that, "53 were found" does not equate to "none existed". Only 25 of 10,000 sites were thoroughly searched (.25%) and they found 53 chemical warheads. That implies there are 20,000 WMDs in Iraq... right now! What am I missing? Where is Hannity, Rush, Savage? This is the biggest media lie in history.
mark
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.