Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Udie on June 19, 2003, 01:17:53 PM
-
Kerry the liar and hypocrite in 1997....
Kerry 2003: Bush Misled Americans On War; Kerry 1997: Warned Of Saddam Nuclear And Biological Capabilities
In New Hampshire yesterday, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said President Bush broke his promise to build an international coalition against Iraq's Saddam Hussein and then waged a war based on questionable intelligence.
But 5 years ago, Sen. Kerry seemed to warn of Saddam's nuclear and biological capabilities as he argued the U.S. must do what it has to do, with or without other nations!
MORE
From the official congressional record: Warned Of Saddam Nuclear And Biological Capabilities:
"It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were to develop and successfully militarize and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences. Extremely small quantities of several known biological weapons have the capability to exterminate the entire population of cities the size of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. These could be delivered by ballistic missile, but they also could be delivered by much more pedestrian means; aerosol applicators on commercial trucks easily could suffice. If Saddam were to develop and then deploy usable atomic weapons, the same holds true." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)
Use Of Force Against Saddam Justified To Prevent WMD Production:
'[Saddam Hussein] cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation."(Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)
Military Force Should Be Used Against Suspected WMD
"In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior. This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)
U.S. May Have To Go It Alone To Stop Saddam:
"Were its willingness to serve in these respects to diminish or vanish because of the ability of Saddam to brandish these weapons, then the ability of the United Nations or remnants of the gulf war coalition, or even the United States acting alone, to confront and halt Iraqi aggression would be gravely damaged." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)
U.S. Must Do What It Has To Do, With Or Without Other Nations:
"[W]hile we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)
liar liar pants on fire!
-
Wow, that Drudge dude must be some kind of genius or super spy or something. He actually discovered a poitician who lied and was hypocritical? Amazing! If he keeps up the snooping he may find one who starts a war and screws the economy into the ground to pay-off his cronies!!
Naw, he probably won't at that. :D
-
Yeah that economy is just terrible. I guess that's why my office has picked up 2 $750,000 multi-year land development projects in the past 2 weeks.
This weekend I think I better hit all the malls and shopping markets here in Austin and warn all the people who are shopping not to spend their money because the economy is so bad.
-
Originally posted by Arfann
Amazing! If he keeps up the snooping he may find one who starts a war and screws the economy into the ground to pay-off his cronies!!
Naw, he probably won't at that. :D
You don't get out much do you? ;)
"US leading economic indicators rose 1 percent in May, "finally" pointing to a recovery, the Conference Board said Thursday. Eight of the 10 indicators increased in May, led by money supply, consumer expectations and stock prices. Two other indicators held steady in May. Economists expected a gain of 0.7 percent after April's 0.1 percent gain."
"Initial jobless claims fell by a larger-than-expected 13,000 to a five-week low of 421,000 in the week that ended June 14, the Labor Department said Thursday. The four-week average, which smoothes out weekly fluctuations, also declined -- by 3,000 to 432,000."
"The number of workers drawing unemployment benefits for more than a week dropped by 62,000 to 3,721, 000 in the week of June 7, the latest period for which those numbers are available. The unemployment rate for workers with unemployment insurance dropped one-tenth of a percentage point to 2.9%."
"In all, 44 states and territories reported an increase in unadjusted initial claims for the week of June 7, while eight reported a decrease and one reported no change. California reported the biggest increase, a gain of 10,125 claims that it attributed to layoffs in the trade, service and manufacturing industries. Mississippi reported the biggest decrease, a decline of 533 claims."
http://news.morningstar.com/news/DJ/M06/D19/1056032460681.html
-
About a dozen U.S. servicemen have been killed by hostile fire in Iraq since President Bush declared major combat over on May 1. American military commanders in Iraq say attacks on their forces happen daily, though one commander on Tuesday dismissed the fighting as "militarily insignificant"
At the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday sought to put a new perspective on the recent deaths and injuries in Iraq, pointing out that Baghdad is a big place with a lower violent crime rate than Washington, D.C.
"You've got to remember that if Washington, D.C., were the size of Baghdad, we would be having something like 215 murders a month," said Rumsfeld. "There's going to be violence in a big city."
CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/24/iraq/main541815.shtml?cmp=EM8705)
sigh... nothing matters..
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/24/iraq/main541815.shtml?cmp=EM8705)
sigh... nothing matters..
What does that have to do with this thread? Unfortunately I expect there will be many more US deaths in the war on terror. Thus far it is much lower than what I had expected, Thank God.
-
But 5 years ago, Sen. Kerry seemed to warn of Saddam's nuclear and biological capabilities as he argued the U.S. must do what it has to do, with or without other nations!
This just proves that Bush was already lying to Kerry years before he even became president. He had it all planned.
-
Rummy seems to be equating our fighting men and women to street crime in Washington D.C. that's all...
To get back to the thread.. here's what Kerry said.
Kerry supported the war and said Wednesday, ''I'm glad Saddam Hussein is gone.'' But the Massachusetts senator has criticized the president's diplomatic efforts. He that concern Wednesday saying Bush had alienated U.S. allies in the runup to war.
As for the question about U.S. intelligence, Kerry said he has led the call for a congressional investigation and pledged, ''We will get to the bottom of this.''
Boston (http://www.boston.com/dailynews/169/nation/Kerry_says_Bush_misled_America:.shtml)
So the question is.. why was the intelligence so bad?.. Let's ask Stan Turner..
WASHINGTON — Former CIA director Stansfield Turner accused the Bush administration Tuesday of "overstretching the facts" about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in making its case for invading that country.
Turner's broadside adds the retired admiral's name to a list of former intelligence professionals concerned that the CIA and its intelligence reports were manipulated to justify the war. Since Baghdad fell April 9, U.S. forces have been unable to find chemical and biological weapons the White House said were in Iraq.
USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-06-17-turner-usat_x.htm)
Opps! guess we don't wanna ask him!.. Let's find somebody else with more creditability. I know... Clare Short
Senior figures in the intelligence community and across Whitehall briefed the former international development secretary Clare Short that Tony Blair had made a secret agreement last summer with George Bush to invade Iraq in February or March, she claimed yesterday.
In damning evidence to the foreign affairs select committee, Ms Short refused to identify the three figures, but she cited their authority for making her claim that Mr Blair had actively deceived the cabinet and the country in persuading them of the need to go to war
Gardian (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,979787,00.html)
Umm.. Ms. Short's testimony won't work either
-
Originally posted by Udie
Yeah that economy is just terrible. I guess that's why my office has picked up 2 $750,000 multi-year land development projects in the past 2 weeks.
This weekend I think I better hit all the malls and shopping markets here in Austin and warn all the people who are shopping not to spend their money because the economy is so bad.
Amazing! Big business enjoying their breaks. Enjoy it while you can. With deficit spending someone gonna pay the piper sooner or later.
Yep, the sheeple gonna run out with that big $400 tax break and clean out the malls, unaware of the fact that their kids'll be paying for it.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
You don't get out much do you? ;)
Define "get out".
-
Originally posted by Arfann
Define "get out".
Out of the closet :D
-
Originally posted by Arfann
Amazing! Big business enjoying their breaks. Enjoy it while you can. With deficit spending someone gonna pay the piper sooner or later.
Yep, the sheeple gonna run out with that big $400 tax break and clean out the malls, unaware of the fact that their kids'll be paying for it.
Deficits have NEVER led to economic down turns or increases in the interest rates. Go read a history book on economics. Tax cuts have never led to economic down turns.
Entitlement SPENDING leads to economic down turns.
After Kennedy’s 2.8% GDP tax cut the revenues grow.
After Reagan’s 3.3% GDP tax cut revenues grow from 500B to 900B in 10 years.
After Bush 1% GDP (first tax cut) and .25% GDP tax cut. That’s right 1.25% combined GDP tax cut which makes them the third and fourth largest not the LARGEST as the media like for you to believe. It also makes them the third and fourth we ever had.
We will see revenues grow once again. And then Hillary can win in 2004 and run the country into the ground like her husband did. And then we will elect a Republican to fix it again. Same old cycle.
-
Tom Daschel and Dick Gephart are also on record of saying the same things.
It’s ok to bomb a country with flimsy reasons (impeachment vote, Monica story braking) when a Dem is in office.
Afgan, Haiti, Serbia, Bosnia, Sudan
But God forbid you decide to actually take action against terrorist.
Do I need to post the links to Clintons inaction to get Osama?
-
Originally posted by Arfann
Amazing! Big business enjoying their breaks. Enjoy it while you can. With deficit spending someone gonna pay the piper sooner or later.
Yep, the sheeple gonna run out with that big $400 tax break and clean out the malls, unaware of the fact that their kids'll be paying for it.
Hmm I don't think we are a big business. We have less than 60 employees in the company and it's owned by 2 individuals.
Please enlighten us to how somebody getting $400 of thier own hard earned money back will cause their kids to have to "pay for it"? I know that we tax payers will be paying for the $400 tax credit for people who don't pay taxes. And you are right the $400 rebate + the what was it 2-3% cut is not enough. Next year we'll have to go for more.
-
Time for Arfann to abandon this thread or try to hijack it. He's faced with hard facts, as a dem supporter he can do nohting else.
-
Nice hijack by the dumbocrap lovers!
-
Originally posted by JBA
Deficits have NEVER led to economic down turns or increases in the interest rates. Go read a history book on economics. Tax cuts have never led to economic down turns.
Entitlement SPENDING leads to economic down turns.
After Kennedy’s 2.8% GDP tax cut the revenues grow.
After Reagan’s 3.3% GDP tax cut revenues grow from 500B to 900B in 10 years.
After Bush 1% GDP (first tax cut) and .25% GDP tax cut. That’s right 1.25% combined GDP tax cut which makes them the third and fourth largest not the LARGEST as the media like for you to believe. It also makes them the third and fourth we ever had.
We will see revenues grow once again. And then Hillary can win in 2004 and run the country into the ground like her husband did. And then we will elect a Republican to fix it again. Same old cycle.
Economic stats are like all other stats. They can be bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated to make any point you want to make. The predominantly conservative crowd in here will agree with your sources. A group with a liberal agenda would show just the opposite of your conclusions with the same data. I use plain ol' common sense. You run up a big bill for "Iraqi Fifedom" and then cut taxes. Someone gonna have to pick up the tab, and the benefactors of the tax break ain't them.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Nice hijack by the dumbocrap lovers!
OMG, he called me a name! Make him stop! Oh, the pain, the pain!!
-
Originally posted by Steve
Time for Arfann to abandon this thread or try to hijack it. He's faced with hard facts, as a dem supporter he can do nohting else.
If you say they're hard facts then, by Gawd, they're hard facts. No matter who manufactured them from the available data.
-
Originally posted by Arfann
If you say they're hard facts then, by Gawd, they're hard facts. No matter who manufactured them from the available data.
Here's the site the Kerry quotes were taken from.....
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=1997_record&page=S12254&position=all
the congressional record.....:rolleyes:
-
You're right Arfann, the congressional records are all lies formulated by the vast right wing conspiracy.
-
Originally posted by Udie
Here's the site the Kerry quotes were taken from.....
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=1997_record&page=S12254&position=all
the congressional record.....:rolleyes:
Oh, no! Not the rolling eyes from hell! Anything but that! :eek:
BTW, I made no claim that the Kerry quotes were anything but true. Y'all spinning 1 + 1 into 3 again.
-
Originally posted by Udie
What does that have to do with this thread? Unfortunately I expect there will be many more US deaths in the war on terror. Thus far it is much lower than what I had expected, Thank God.
Actually there have been over 50 dead American soldiers in Iraq since the war 'ended', including one today, not all hostile fire but a mounting toll. Apparently six have been killed so far by one sniper. According to reports I saw the troops are getting restless. They expected to be going home by now and for it to have ended but they are still getting killed.
It will be interesting to hear what they have to say when they do get home.
By the way, Udie, Iraq wasn't supposed to be part of the war on terror. It was all about WMD's and liberating Iraqis.
-
Well, we are backing up our assertions w/ quotes from the man himself. While you blamed Bush forthe economy etc with no facts whatsoever. Then you accuse US of not having hard facts. what kind of hypocrite are you?
-
Tempest in a teapot.
-
Originally posted by JBA
Do I need to post the links to Clintons inaction to get Osama?
Yeah, let's see if you can come up with a news article (not an op-ed) from a reputable newspaper.
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
Yeah, let's see if you can come up with a news article (not an op-ed) from a reputable newspaper.
Whats "Reputable"? NYT? LOL! How about the BBC? LOL again!
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
So the question is.. why was the intelligence so bad?.. Let's ask Stan Turner..
USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-06-17-turner-usat_x.htm)
How in the world does Stansfield Turner know what intell was given to the White House. He is either flat out lieing, and has no basis forhis remarks other than "newspapers" or has broken very many laws and should go to jail.
Opps! guess we don't wanna ask him!.. Let's find somebody else with more creditability. I know... Clare Short
Gardian (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,979787,00.html)
Umm.. Ms. Short's testimony won't work either
Isn't Ms. Short just another out of power politician inventing unprovable "sources" aka deepthroat? Isn't she just tyring to get back in the limelight?
[/I]
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Whats "Reputable"? NYT? LOL! How about the BBC? LOL again!
Those are reputable. I would add the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, and even the USA Today. The networks are also acceptable sources.
Unaccetable sources would include The Drudge Report, the LA Weekly, Mother Jones, The Weekly Standard, The Nation, New York Post, Utne Reader, NewsMax, etc.
Good luck on your hunt JBA, you aren't going to be able to find crap. Not only because such stories don't exist, but becuase I doubt you've ever been in a university library or used Lexis/Nexis.
And while I am here, I should remind everyone about the differences between 1997 and 2003.
In 1997, Saddam had kicked out the UN inspectors and they had been finding WMD.
In 2003, Saddam allowed the UN inspectors in and they had been finding nothing.
Big difference. If Matt Drudge is going to write articles about Sen Kerry's statements in 1997, he should put them into perspective by stating what was happening in 1997 and not assume that his ignorant readers will be able to figure it out for themselves.
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
In 1997, Saddam had kicked out the UN inspectors and they had been finding WMD.
Please provide source for the claim that they had found WMD in 1997. I'm real curious about that.
Thanks :D
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
Those are reputable. I would add the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, and even the USA Today. The networks are also acceptable sources.
Unaccetable sources would include The Drudge Report, the LA Weekly, Mother Jones, The Weekly Standard, The Nation, New York Post, Utne Reader, NewsMax, etc.
Sorry, I guess it depends on your point of view. I see the Washington Times as reputable, but the left sees the Washington Post a reputable. Just about every large city has a left leaning work force, so naturally you're going to see those as "reputable" because A) you agree with most of their editorials and B) they lean towards the politics you believe in.
The NYT is simply the most blatant liberal hogwash I've ever read...they don't report the news, they give an editorial in every story.
Drudge report is a conglomeration of several current news stories from different papers so I'm not sure how you deduct it as being unacceptable.
Sounds like you've just drawn a "This is Left and this is Right" line down the middle of the media. I say open your mind up and read all of it, then make the decision yourself, rather than forming the opinion of that "really cool college professor" you had in college.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Sounds like you've just drawn a "This is Left and this is Right" line down the middle of the media. I say open your mind up and read all of it, then make the decision yourself, rather than forming the opinion of that "really cool college professor" you had in college.
I do read everything, chalk it up to your own lack of sophistication that you didn't recognize any of the left-leaning publications on that short list I would not consider reliable.
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
Please provide source for the claim that they had found WMD in 1997. I'm real curious about that.
Thanks :D
Search Goolgle for UNSCOM.
'What UNSCOM and the IAEA have found (Nov/Dec 1998):
Since 1991, in carrying out its mandate under UN Security Council Resolution 687, the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) has destroyed, or made harmless, a "supergun"; 48 Scud missiles; 40,000 chemical munitions; 690 tonnes of CW agents; 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals; and biological warfare-related factories and equipment. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) found a nuclear weapons programme far more advanced than suspected, and dismantled it. '
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
I do read everything, chalk it up to your own lack of sophistication that you didn't recognize any of the left-leaning publications on that short list I would not consider reliable.
I'd be glad to admit I lack sophistication, however I might add I'll take common sense over sophistication anyday! ;)
-
Senator Kerry said the following in 1997:
"It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were to develop and successfully militarize and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences.
Ya'll need some reading comp classes.
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
In 1997, Saddam had kicked out the UN inspectors and they had been finding WMD.
In 2003, Saddam allowed the UN inspectors in and they had been finding nothing.
Big difference. If Matt Drudge is going to write articles about Sen Kerry's statements in 1997, he should put them into perspective by stating what was happening in 1997 and not assume that his ignorant readers will be able to figure it out for themselves.
Even if you had a good point there, intentionally misrepresenting the facts makes your point look pretty stupid.
2002, Saddam kicked out inspectors. 2002, Saddam was faced with a looming threat of war. 2003, Saddam did not allow inspectors in under his own volition. There was indeed a LOT of outside pressure, and he was faced with full cooperation or else.
-SW
-
and all he had to do was prove that he destroyed them.....
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
Those are reputable. I would add the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, and even the USA Today. The networks are also acceptable sources.
Unaccetable sources would include The Drudge Report, the LA Weekly, Mother Jones, The Weekly Standard, The Nation, New York Post, Utne Reader, NewsMax, etc.
Reputable? I'm not a big Drudge fan, but I don't think he's any more or less reputable than any of the others. Even the WSJ is not above publishing an article to forward their own particular agenda.
-
hey udie tell me how those strip malls work out when deflation hits.