|
difference one lied about it, Voted for it and still thinks it was the right thing to do. The other oposed it from long before it started and still thinks it was the wrong thing to do.
JK lie
MR. RUSSERT: Unmanned aerial vehicles...
SEN. KERRY: Sure.
MR. RUSSERT: ...a nuclear threat. Those are exactly the things that you suggested in New Hampshire President Bush had lied to you about.
MR. RUSSERT: But you had access to the intelligence. You had access to the national intelligence estimate...
SEN. KERRY: Absolutely.
Voted for it
SEN. KERRY: Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing weaponizing of a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles, such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives which would bring them to the United States itself.
In addition, we know they are developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents.
{b] According to the CIA’s report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that they are seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop them.
"I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable"
Even though he agrees with Howard Dean
"I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar"
"It would require the President, before exercising the authority granted in the resolution, to send a determination to Congress that the United States tried to seek a new Security Council resolution or that the threat posed by Iraq's WMD is so great he must act absent a new resolution"
"I believe this approach would have provided greater clarity to the American people about the reason for going to war and the specific grant of authority. I think it would have been a better way to do this."
"The administration rejected the Biden-Lugar approach"
Lame excuse John. Cause bush didnt like it you laid down?
Then you have Dean
Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said if Saddam is shown to have atomic or biological weapons, the United States must act. But he also said Bush must first convince Americans that Iraq has these weapons and then prepare them for the likelihood American troops would be there for a decade.
August 12, 2002
"There's substantial doubt that is as much of a threat as the Bush administration claims." Though Americans might initially rally to military action, 'that support will be very short-lived once American kids start coming home in boxes,' Mr. Dean warned Wednesday as he campaigned in Iowa.
September 06, 2002
"The president has to do two things to get the country's long-term support for the invasion of Iraq," Dean said in a telephone interview. "He has done neither yet." Dean said President Bush needs to make the case that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, such as atomic or biological weapons, and the means to use them. Bush also needs to explain to the American public that a war against Iraq is going to require a long commitment.
September 18, 2002
Dean, in an interview Tuesday, said flatly that he did not believe Bush has made "the case that we need to invade Iraq." Dean said he could support military action, even outside the U.N., if Bush could "establish with reasonable credibility" that Hussein had the capacity to deliver either nuclear or biological weapons against the United States and its allies. But he said that the president, to this point, hadn't passed that test.
"He is asking American families to sacrifice their children, and he's got to have something more than, 'This is an evil man,' " Dean said. "There are a lot of evil people running countries around the world; we don't bomb every one of them. We don't ask our children to die over every one of them."
September 18, 2002
"The president approached it in exactly the wrong way. The first thing I would have done is gone to United Nations Security Council and gone to our allies and say, "Look, the UN resolutions are being violated. If you don't enforce them, then we will have to." The first choice, however, is to enforce them through the UN and with our allies. That's the underlying approach."
October 31st, 2002
"I would like to at least have the president, who I think is an honest person, look us in the eye and say, 'We have evidence, here it is.' We've never heard the president of the United States say that. There is nothing but innuendo, and I want to see some hard facts."
December 22, 2002
"I do not believe the president has made the case to send American kids and grandkids to die in Iraq. And until he does that, I don't think we ought to be going into Iraq. So I think the two situations are fairly different. Iraq does not possess nuclear weapons. The best intelligence that anybody can find, certainly that I can find, is that it will be at least a year before he does so and maybe five years."
January 06, 2003
"I personally believe hasn’t made his case"
January 10, 2003
"These are the young men and women who will be asked to risk their lives for freedom. We certainly deserve more information before sending them off to war."
January 29, 2003
"Terrorism around the globe is a far greater danger to the United States than Iraq. We are pursuing the wrong war,"
February 5, 2003
"We ought not to resort to unilateral action unless there is an imminent threat to the United States. And the secretary of State and the president have not made a case that such an imminent threat exists.''
February 12, 2003
In an interview, Dean said that he opposed the congressional resolution and remained unconvinced that Hussein was an imminent threat to the United States. He said he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approved the move and backed it with action of its own.
"They have to send troops," he said.
Feb. 22, 2003
"Well, I think that the United Nations makes it clear that Saddam has to disarm, and if he doesn't, then they will disarm him militarily. I have no problem with supporting a United Nations attack on Iraq, but I want it to be supported by the United Nations. That's a well-constituted body. The problem with the so-called multilateral attack that the president is talking about is an awful lot of countries, for example, like Turkey-- we gave them $20 billion in loan guarantees and outright grants in order to secure their permission to attack. I don't think that's the right way to put together a coalition. I think this really has to be a world matter. Saddam must be disarmed. He is as evil as everybody says he is. But we need to respect the legal rights that are involved here. Unless they are an imminent threat, we do not have a legal right, in my view, to attack them.
February 27, 2003
What I want to know is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting the President’s unilateral intervention in Iraq?
March 15th, 2003
"I went to Parris Island so I could look into the faces of the kids who will be sent to Iraq," Dean told a cheering lunchtime crowd in Concord, N.H. "We should always support our kids, but I do not support this president's policies and I will continue to say so."
March 18, 2003
"Anti-war Presidential candidate Howard Dean said he will not silence his criticism of President Bush's Iraq policy now that the war has begun, but he will stop the 'red meat' partisan attacks.
"No matter how strongly I oppose the President's policy, I will continue to support American troops who are now in harms way," said Dean
March 20, 2003
While Dean said he was staunchly opposed to the war and planned to continue criticizing it, he also said the United States should keep fighting, putting him at odds with other antiwar activists who have been calling for an immediate cease-fire.
''We're in. We don't have any choice now. But this is the wrong choice,'' Dean said. ''There will be some who think we should get out immediately, but I don't think that's an easy position to take.''
March 23, 2003
On day one of a Dean Presidency, I will reverse this attitude. I will tear up the Bush Doctrine. And I will steer us back into the company of the community of nations where we will exercise moral leadership once again.
April 17th, 2003
Nuff Said!
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
