Welcome Guest
( Log In | Register )
The time is now 2:28 pm
You last visited January 16, 2017, 2:13 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

John Kerry Why would we trust this man to be our president?

Published:

Last Edited: October 31, 2004, 9:55 pm

"John Kerry's Other Vietnam War
Why would we trust this man to be our president?


By Stephen Morris

John Kerry has fought this election campaign as a political moderate. Certainly his main foreign-policy advisers are moderate Democrats. But that campaign posture disguises his 34-year record in public life - which produced no legislative achievement, but featured a well-documented obsession with Vietnam and Cambodia that continues to the present day. Kerry made his four and a half months of service in Vietnam an electoral issue, but it's his 34 years of political activism on Vietnam and Cambodia that go to the heart of his political outlook and character.

In 1970, while still a reserve officer in the U.S. Navy, Kerry undertook his own private meetings with the Vietnamese Communist delegations in Paris. He joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a radical-Left organization viewed favorably by Hanoi, membership of which was less than one half of one percent of the 2.8 million Americans who served in Vietnam.

Kerry is remembered and reviled by many veterans for his 1971 speech before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in which he accused American soldiers of committing widespread atrocities and war crimes. He specifically asserted that U.S. soldiers were not only carrying out the cruelest tortures, with full knowledge of their commanders at the highest level, but were also "murdering" 200,000 Vietnamese each year. Many of Kerry's sources - the witnesses at the Winter Soldier Investigation paid for by Jane Fonda - were later exposed as frauds who had never served in Vietnam. Kerry's blanket libel of American troops was in stark contrast with his silence over the well-documented record of atrocities by the Communists, which were a matter of policy.

But what has been largely overlooked in Kerry's 1971 speech is that he also supported the Vietnamese Communist cause, mouthing every plank of their political platnorm as his own. He not only favored immediate unconditional withdrawal of American troops, and creation of a coalition government. He also denounced the then elected government of South Vietnam, where political opposition thrived, as the "Thieu-Ky-Khiem dictatorship." By contrast he referred to the North Vietnamese Communist dictatorship by its Orwellian official title of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and to Hanoi's southern apparatus as "the Provisional Government."

Were Kerry's extremist views merely the misadventures of a war-embittered youth? Hardly.

When Kerry joined the Senate in 1985 one of his early appointments as legislative assistant on foreign affairs was Gareth Porter - an academic with a long record of denying any evidence of major Communist atrocities in Indochina. Porter's 1976 book, Cambodia. Starvation and Revolution/I, denied that the Khmer Rouge holocaust was taking place. Of course Kerry himself had been conspicuously silent on postwar Khmer Rouge atrocities while they were happening.

Kerry continued to support some of Hanoi's foreign-policy interests in the Senate, even at the expense of his often-stated preference for the U.N. In 1990, in a rare act of post-Cold War political unity, the U.N. Security Council approved a plan to end the war in Cambodia with a U.N. Temporary Administration of Cambodia to organize elections. Yet Kerry opposed it. Instead, he wanted the Vietnamese-installed ex-Khmer Rouge Hun Sen to organize elections.

Kerry has been claiming credit for solving the problem of American POWs missing in Vietnam. This is false. Kerry had been determined for years to normalize relations with the government of Vietnam - ending trade sanctions and opening up diplomatic relations. The demands of families of Americans missing in action, that Hanoi account for the fate of their loved ones who were known to have been alive when captured, but who never returned, had for years prevented U.S. moves to normalization. So in 1992 Kerry chaired the Senate Select Committee on POWs and Missing in Action from the Vietnam War. Kerry set the bar very low: Instead of focusing on what the Communists could do to explain what had happened to their American prisoners, Kerry focused on whether there was evidence of any Americans still alive in Indochina. Lacking sufficient intelligence from U.S. intelligence services, Kerry and his committee members decided to travel to Vietnam, ostensibly to see for themselves if any Americans were being hidden in various places where live sightings were alleged. The Vietnamese Communists were asked to make sites accessible. So the American media were invited to join the intrepid senators, traveling the Vietnamese countryside looking for American prisoners. This political theater would have been comic had it not been so pathetic. Why, if the Vietnamese government were secretly holding American prisoners, would it allow them to be discovered by visiting senators? Over the years, when foreign visitors, including humanitarian organizations, inspected their political prisons, the Vietnamese Communists would always empty the cells of emaciated Vietnamese prisoners and fill them with healthy, happy prison guards in disguise. Naturally, on this occasion the Vietnamese played along. No live Americans were found. In December 1992 the Senate Committee concluded that there was no evidence of Americans still living in Indochina. The path to normalization seemed clear - until one stumbling block suddenly appeared.

In the winter of 1992-93, while a fellow at Harvard University, I was researching the history of the Vietnam War in recently opened Soviet Communist Party archives in Moscow. By chance I discovered a secret Soviet military-intelligence document concerning American POWs once held in North Vietnam. The Russian-language document asserted that in September 1972 hundreds more American POWs than Hanoi had admitted to holding were being secretly held in North Vietnam. If true, this meant that hundreds of living American prisoners were never released at war's end. In February 1993 I contacted the Clinton administration, and met Deputy NSC Adviser Sandy Berger in Washington about this. In April I provided the document to the New York Times. The front-page Times story created enormous media and public interest. Senator Kerry appeared on ABC's Nightline with me to discuss the issue. But he was skeptical then and showed no further interest - until his public disparagement of the document's contents caused me to criticize him in the Boston media. Then Kerry suddenly took an interest, and phoned me, asking me to meet him in his Boston office on the weekend. There I told him, as I had told Sandy Berger in February, that this document was the tip of an iceberg. The ultimate fate of those missing Americans could be determined not from this document, but from other secret documents in other parts of the Russian archives to which I had not been given access. President Boris Yeltsin, eager for American assistance at the time, could give the U.S. access. I offered Kerry, as I had Berger, to help them in any way. Kerry said he would pursue the matter. But I never heard from him on this matter again. Kerry, it seems, only wanted to silence the source of a politically inconvenient controversy, which was impeding his political priority of normalization - not determine conclusively the fate of hundreds of missing American heroes.

Ties with Vietnam were eventually normalized. And Kerry's support for the dictatorial regime - his apparent indifference to human rights in Indochina - continues to this day. Ever since the U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly in 2001 for Vietnam human-rights efforts, Kerry has bottled up this bill in his Senate committee, preventing it from reaching the floor for a vote.

He has treated Cambodia with the same disdain. The non-Communists, whom the U.S. government had been aiding during the 1980s (in the face of Kerry's rabid opposition), won the 1993 U.N.-sponsored elections. But the Vietnamese-installed Communist ruler, Hun Sen, whose forces the U.N. had failed to disarm, refused to accept the result, and demanded a share of power. The Clinton administration and the U.N. caved in to his threats. Still not satisfied, in 1997 Hun Sen launched a bloody coup d'état to seize total power. Democratic opponents of the Communists were tortured to death in the most grisly manner. Yet Kerry still embraced the normer Khmer Rouge commissar as Cambodia's legitimate ruler. Kerry's staff even blocked Sam Rainsy, the leader of Cambodia's terrorized democratic opposition, from testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Is this the kind of person that the American people would want to have making judgments about the direction of U.S. foreign policy? How could he be relied upon to make wise judgments about dealing with North Korea - a nation in the process of acquiring a nuclear arsenal? North Korea is a totalitarian state that is related to the kinds of regimes with which John Kerry has shown such affinity over the years. North Korea's nuclear arsenal poses an immediate threat to Japan and South Korea, and it will soon have missile delivery systems capable of striking Los Angeles and San Francisco. And should the erratic tyrant Kim Jong-Il choose to proliferate nuclear weapons the way he has proliferated missiles, he could provide al Qaeda with the ability to devastate major American cities.

John Kerry's sympathy for totalitarian states in the past has resulted in the slander of millions of American Vietnam veterans, not to mention the betrayal of hundreds of missing American POWs. If he is elected president, in dealing with more powerful and dangerous totalitarian enemies like North Korea, his flawed judgment and values could have devastating consequences for all the people of America, and the world.

- Stephen J. Morris is a fellow at John Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, D.C. He is the author of Why Vietnam Invaded Cambodia.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/morris200410311242.asp

 

Entry #27

Comments

1.
Comment by Babel - October 31, 2004, 11:14 pm
And people talk about Bush haters. Jesus christ, enough already.
2.
DoctorEw220Comment by DoctorEw220 - November 1, 2004, 12:00 am
why would i trust john kerry as president? I WOULDN'T.
3.
whodeaniComment by whodeani - November 1, 2004, 12:13 am
It's not about hate. I don't hate John Kerry. It is just about John Kerry's own past and his politcal beliefs and his indecision on an important issue that I truly believe doesn't qualify him to be president. A leader doesn't take polls to determine what his position on an issue should be.

When John Kerry went to Vietnam he thought he could use his service as an asset for an eventual political career. The Vietnam war wasn't as unpopular at the time. But a few years later the war became unpopular he used that political wind to change his tune about his service in Vietnam and became opposed to the war. He did the same when it came to the war in Iraq. For years he talked about how Saddam Hussein was a threat and he should be disarmed. After 9/11 the support for a war in Iraq was pretty strong. I think polls had support for it in the high 60s or low 70s. John Kerry was in favor of it. Now that things aren't going so well and support has eroded, John Kerry just like 30 years ago, changed his tune just as the political wind changed. JOHN KERRY IS A FOLLOWER AND NOT A LEADER!!! We don't know what John Kerry would have done with Iraq because because he himself doesn't know. There are no crystal balls to look into the future through when you are president to see what action you should take. But that is what John Kerry just wishes he had.
4.
Comment by Babel - November 1, 2004, 1:29 am
Except he hasn't changed his position about Saddam or Iraq. You have to listen to everything he says, not just the 3 words the republicans want you to hear. If you listen to every speech he's given about iraq he says the same thing each time. Read this, http://www.factcheck.org/article269.html

John Kerry is committed to finishing the job in Iraq right. Because we don't have any choice anymore. We turned Iraq into exactly what we were trying to fight, a haven for terrorism.

Yes there was popular support for Iraq in the beginning. I personally was against it because I didn't believe that it was as great a threat as it was made out to be. But there was popular support. What have we learned since then though? We learned that the intelligence used to justify the attack was skimpy at best, that for every story showing what the president wanted it to show there was equal evidence for the opposite. The Bush administration cherry picked what made their case and ignored or marginalized the rest. We have also learned that there were many within the administration such as persons no less then the army chief of staff, the secretary of state, and the head administrator of iraq before the change of soverignty said we needed more troops and that securing Iraq after Saddam fell was going to be a hugely difficult job. These people were also ignored and marginalized. Our screwups have been so numerous and so fundamental in iraq that the iraqi people think that life under Saddam was better. Support for iraq hasn't eroded because the situation is hard, it's eroded because it didn't need to be. It was all preventable. And now that we know all this we still aren't changing our ways significantly. Because we must be consistant. But as senator Kerry said in the debates, you can be certain and consistant and still be wrong.

The war in Iraq reminds me of a saying from a very wise chinese general centuries ago. "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat." It is my belief that the Bush administration doesn't truely understand our enemy. They either don't understand or don't care to understand their motivations.
5.
whodeaniComment by whodeani - November 1, 2004, 1:39 am
I'm sorry Babel but if John Kerry hasn't changed his position on Iraq then how would you explain the audio clip I have linked below. It is more than 3 words. In fact, it is about 10 minutes of John Kerry's own words.

This audio file requires Real Media player.

http://www.620wtmj.com/620audio/Kerry's%20new%20ad%2009-29-04.rm
6.
whodeaniComment by whodeani - November 1, 2004, 1:55 am
What is there to understand about their motivations? We are supposed to understand their motivations for killing 3000 innocent civilians. There is nothing to understand about that because there are no justifications for it. So no I don't want to understand their motivations. All I know is that they want to kill as many Americans as they can and for that not too happen they need to be dealt with aggressively. At no time ever for no good reason did we lob some cruise missles into a skyscraper full of innocent civilians just to kill as many Arabs as we could. They wanted this war we didn't. But since they started it we must finish it by ridding the world of these type of people.
7.
Comment by Babel - November 1, 2004, 3:29 am
Thank you for proving my point. That audio file is exactly what I'm talking about. It's all individual phrases taken out of context to show what the republicans want you to believe and not the truth.

"We need to disarm Saddam Hussein." And he believed that. The Bush administration trotted out all kinds of evidence that there was a real danger. Of course what we know now was that while they trotted out all that evidence for their position they ignored all the evidence to the contrary.

"It's the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time." And it is. It was justified wrongly, waged wrongly, and has nothing to do with fighting terrorists, at least it didn't when we started it. They key to this argument is that Kerry believed what we were being told at the time. What we didn't know is that there was tons of evidence showing Iraq was no threat but that was being ignored by the Bush administration.

"I would not have made the wrong choices that are now forcing us to pay nearly the entire cost of this war." This is consistant with his beliefs because he would have brought in more allies, not alienated them. Allies that are willing to be real partners and share the burden equally. Instead we have the coalition of the willing which includes nations like Costa Rica with no army of any kind nor any financial support. They wished us well though. In fact almost half of the coalition at the start of the war consisted of countries with no more assistance to provide then good wishes. Of the rest most either would only provide the use of bases or air space or only signed up because they wanted our support for something.

"No I think we should increase (funding) by any number of billions it takes to win." This is also consistant with his beliefs that we need to succeed. We created what wasn't there before, a breeding ground of terrorists. Even the president's secretary of defense has said that we are creating terrorists faster there then we can capture them. We owe it to our troops and the people of iraq to at least leave the place as good as we found it.

"I think it was a huge mistake for the president to go to war in the way he did, I've said that a dozen times" This is also consistant from what he's said from the beginning when the war resolution was being discussed on the floor of the senate. He laid out a correct way to go about this. The president took option B.

"based on weapons of mass destruction, the president distorted that and I've said that." This is a fact. There was a whole raft load of evidence that Saddam was not a threat. This was ignored by the Bush administration.

"I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it." He did, actually. I don't remember if he actually proposed it or just supported it but there was a resolution to provide the 87 billion needed (to buy equipment that should have been provided BEFORE we went to war) if it would be supported through taxes. John Kerry actually had the gal to suggest we actually pay for the war rather then charge it to the national credit card. He has a belief in pesky things like pay as you go and fiscal discipline. Strange beliefs, I know, but he has them. Oh, by the way, 41 other sentors agreed with him that it should be paid for through taxes rather then deficit spending.

I've listend to your evidence, how about you read mine. http://www.factcheck.org/article269.html
8.
Comment by Babel - November 1, 2004, 3:53 am
I would imagine the 100,000 iraqi civilians that have died since we invaded the country would argue the point that they wanted the war. Osama Bin Laden attacked us and killed 3000 of our people. Al Quaeda attacked us and killed 3000 of our people. The citizens of Afganistan didn't attack us. The citizens of Iraq didn't attack us. Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. As Sun Tzu brilliantly said all those centuries ago if you don't understand your enemy for every success (Afganistan though this can be debated) you will suffer a defeat (Iraq). You can't fight angry fundamentalists by creating more angry fundamentalists. So it's important to understand why they believe what they believe. These are also groups with no state to sanction, no cities to occupy, no armies to defeat on the field of battle. This can't be waged as a conventional war. It won't work. As Iraq has shown us. We have lost the initiative there. The insurgents attack us where they want, when they want. We are reacting to them, they are not reacting to us. This is a disaster in war.

I find it appaling that you seem to think that the deaths of 3000 american civilians is so horrible yet for every death we suffered on 9/11 between 3 and 33 iraqis have died (the military can't be bothered to try and keep track). To me that is more horrible because it didn't need to be. We went to war for the wrong reasons and worse yet we have done it in the wrong way. It's almost as if the Bush administration conducted a study on how NOT to fight the war and went with that plan.
9.
whodeaniComment by whodeani - November 1, 2004, 8:16 am
Have innocent Iraqis died since the war started? Yes!. But to equate the death of Iraqis to what happened on 9/11 is ridiculus. Those Iraqis weren't killed intentionally like our citizens were. As I said in a post a few weeks ago if Iraqis are being intentionally killed it is being done by other Muslims, not Americans. Which makes us totally different from the terrorists and there no way you can compare what is happening to Iraqis and what happened to Americans on 9/11.
10.
whodeaniComment by whodeani - November 1, 2004, 9:31 am
About the factcheck.org post.

Kerry: George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity.

We did use diplomacy. George Bush spoke in front of the United Nations in 2002 and told them Saddam Hussein should be held accountable and that existing U.N. resolutions should be upheld. After that I believe the U.N. passed one or two more resolutions that Saddam Hussein chose to ignore. Sanctions were not working. But all of this talk about diplomacy is a moot point because John Kerry has said the President has the right to act unilaterally. His words, not mine. So which is it? Do we take the "global test" or do what we feel is in the best interest of our country and defend ourselves. Bush did both but neither was good enough for Kerry. Again that is John Kerry wanting it both ways.


Q: Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it's been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?

Kerry: I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely. Do I think this president violated his promises to America? Yes, I do, Chris.

This is the direct Monday morning quarterbacking that the President was talking about. Anybody can say after the fact when things aren't going so good that some things may have been mishandled. But that also means you don't have to have a defeatist attitude either. You know looking back on it I can say the Normandy invasion on June 6th, 1944, was a strategic failure at the time. Thousands of Americans died that day. You know maybe we should have quit after that because it was such a terrible blunder. But you know we didn't and we continued to fight the war because it was just and the world was better off that it was faught and won.

Q: All this terrorism. If you were president, how would you stop it?

Kerry: Well, it's going to take some time to stop it, Chris, but we have an enormous amount of cooperation to build one other countries. I think the administration is not done enough of the hard work of diplomacy, reaching out to nations, building the kind of support network.

Let's be honest. What nations are we talking about when John Kerry is talking about when he would have a coalition? France and Germany. Both countries said that will not send troops or money even if Kerry is elected President. I believe France for sure was one of the countries that voted against the U.N. resolution to take action against Iraq. And why was this? They were being paid off by Saddam Hussein through oil for food program in exchange for a no action vote in the security council. They are supposed to be one of our trusted allies. So who really are John Kerry's "the coerced and the bribed?" If having a coalition of the willing is so darn important to John Kerry, then why did he vote against the Gulf War????? We had everything John Kerry wanted in that war. We had a U.N. resolution to remove Saddam from Kuwait and we had the support of close to 100 nations I believe (France and Germany inlcuded). This John Kerry's "global test" he talks about and he failed his own test. So much for coaltion building as an important piece of the puzzle in going to war don't you think?


When Kerry called Iraq "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time" he was once again criticizing Bush for failing to get more international support before invading Iraq. He criticized Bush for what he called a "phony coalition" of allies:

Kerry (Sept 6, 2004): You've got about 500 troops here, 500 troops there, and it's American troops that are 90 percent of the combat casualties, and it's American taxpayers that are paying 90 percent of the cost of the war . . . It's the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time.

My answer to the last question answers this one. We had a coalition other (other than France and Germany) and they wouldn't have been there if John Kerry had been President and John Kerry had a pretty good idea when he voted for authorization that France and Germany would not go. So troop numbers in Iraq wouldn't have been any different but yet John Kerry was for the war before. So if it was the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time after the war then it should have been before. He changed his position because it benefit him politically. That is a flip-flop.


The exchange was on Fox News Sunday, with host Chris Wallace:

Q: But isn't it, in a realistic political sense going to be a much harder case to make to voters when you have that extraordinary mug shot of Saddam Hussein...looking like he's been dragged into a police line-up?

Kerry: Absolutely not, because I voted to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. I knew we had to hold him accountable. There's never been a doubt about that. But I also know that if we had done this with a sufficient number of troops, if we had done this in a globalized way, if we had brought more people to the table, we might have caught Saddam Hussein sooner. We might have had less loss of life. We would be in a stronger position today with respect to what we're doing.

Look, again, I repeat, Chris, I have always said we may yet even find weapons of mass destruction. I don't know the answer to that. We will still have to do the job of rebuilding Iraq and resolving the problem between Shias and Sunnis and Kurds. There are still difficult steps ahead of us.

The question that Americans want to know is, what is the best way to proceed? Not what is the most lonely and single-track ideological way to proceed. I believe the best way to proceed is to bring other countries to the table, get some of our troops out of the target, begin to share the burden.

Again more about coalition building which we know wouldn't have brought more allies in. These countries were not going to support us no matter what we did. And even if there were, what is to say that would have played an important part in Kerry's decision making. I already mentioned his vote on the Gulf War. He had the U.N. and all the countries he could have ever wanted but yet he voted against that war.

The $87 billion dollars.

I don't care why John Kerry voted against it. If you voted to send men and women to war you don't selectively choose how you are going to fund it. Again it was an attempt to make a political point about making the rich pay for the funding by attacking the President's tax cutting policy. That is what I don't like about John Kerry. Every thing has to be qualified. Everything always has a BUT included in it. He can take both sides every issue by doing this. He can be for something but yet if things aren't going so well he can say he may have done something different in the execution of it. That is a Monday morning quarterback who has all the answers after the fact which is a sign of someone who will not lead.





11.
konaneComment by konane - November 1, 2004, 10:08 am
Babel .... I'm countering hate-Bush DemocrticUnderground.com - Michael Moore - type lies with articles stating the Truth about Kerry's past which he is making every effort to hide ... so live with it.

If you don't like what I'm posting or writing then don't read it. Go somewhere else more to your liking.

In so far as hating Kerry, I don't hate the man.

I've listened to Kerry's words, watched him and as a human being I simply do Not Trust Kerry. I     I don't trust him, he isn't someone I trust to lead this nation one hour much less four years because of his Betrayals in the past.

A leopard never change his spots ... and Kerry still has the same rotten self serving core substance as he did when he betrayed our service personnel, our unaccounted for POW's while trying to make a name for himself in his Senate testimony about alleged atrocities in Viet Nam.

Kerry's actions in the past have proven him to be treasonous, treacherous and as Whodeani aptly stated, Kerry is a follower, not a leader.

Kerry will betray the nation if elected, period.

Oh Babel ..... why don't you wait until they've unearthed and catalogued all of Saddam's mass graves containing corpses of women and children who opposed him then whine about deaths. Deaths of innocents were much greater before we set boot on the soil, and oftentimes insurgents kill innocents and claim it was us who did it. However, remember we use surgical strikes now which eliminate 95% of collateral damage that took place in Viet Nam and earlier.

A vote for Kerry is a vote to show the world we are wussies and are cowards waiting for the slaughter or worse yet have our Judeo Christian based Constitution disassembled and replaced with a governance of much heavier Islamic rule. A few years off perhaps, but mark my words it will happen if Kerry steals the election. If you ever thought Christianity was a problem then you haven't seen anything yet.

My personal take is that the "left" functions as "hand puppets", "useful idiots", "appease-nicks" for a darkforce in the world which is in fact the biblically referenced anti-Christ in the flesh which is radical Islam. The left is in bed with the enemy which seeks to destroy this nation, to destroy all people who love and hold freedom dear. Too bad the left is too "intellectually superior" to realize they're being used as a facilitator of destruction rather than change.

BTW, just for the record I'm not Christian so you won't get any mileage from the assumption that I'm blindly following Bush because the far right says to.
12.
Comment by Babel - November 1, 2004, 12:53 pm
I would agree to the monday night quarterbacking charge. That's true. But calling it monday night quarterbacking and ignoring it is missing the point. Mistakes have been made but when mistakes are made you need to go back and look at what you did wrong and change it. The Bush administration is saying up is down and sticking with the same failed tactics and policies. President Bush could win the election today if he would simply stand up in front of the country admit that Iraq wasn't the danger he thought it was and lay out a strategy to turn Iraq around. We don't have enough troops in Iraq. We need more. We either need to send more or we need to convince other countries to help out. We need to flood the country with reconstruction funds and change the lives of Iraqi's in a way they can see. They have no jobs (unemployment is in the 60% range), they have no money, they don't have clean water, reliable power, or good medical care. If we are to win their hearts and minds we must change this or the insurgency will grow faster then we can fight it.

The president has the right to act unilaterally to protect us. To respond to dangers to our country. Iraq never attacked us. Iraq wasn't a threat to us. Yes Saddam was a horrible person and yes the world is better with him and his sons out of power and dead. But the world being better isn't the same as America being safer. I don't remember making the world a better place as a reason the President gave the country for going to war. I would contend that if he had said that's why we went there wouldn't be support for it. If our goal is to make the world a better place we are going to be very busy. Maybe we should start with trying to stop the spread of AIDS instead of invading countries that are no threat to us.

You say that sanctions wern't working but if they wern't working how do you explain the lack of weapons of mass destruction? How do you explain the fact that Saddam's weapons programs were becoming less able to produce anything instead of more able? Sanctions were working. It's not because Saddam suddenly decided to be a good guy and no longer wanted them. He would have done anything he could to get what he wanted if he thought he could get away with it. Witness the oil for food scandal. He couldn't get around sanctions so he was trying to buy his way out of them.

But if you don't care why John Kerry does what he does or votes the way he votes there isn't much point in discussing it with you.

And konane I'll just let what you said right there stand too. You say you don't hate Kerry and then go on to say he betrayed the nation, he's rotten, he's self serving, treasonous, treacherous, yadda yadda yadda. John Kerry didn't betray the nation, he's not rotten, he's not self serving, treasonous, treacherous, or anything else. He put his life on the line for this country and volunteered for some of the most hazardous duty he could find.
13.
whodeaniComment by whodeani - November 1, 2004, 1:09 pm
Babel if Iraq was not a threat to us then why was John Kerry saying it was. He is your guy saying that, not me. You can't say that Iraq was a threat and Saddam should be disarmed and in the same breath say it is the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

I know I can't convince you of my stance and you can't convince me of yours. It has been good to debate with you and make logical arugments and not just make baseless arguments. I for one will be happy on Wedenesday (assuming we have a winner) because I am suffering from the pre-election anxiety syndrome. I will not be happy if John Kerry wins but I will be glad that is it over.
14.
konaneComment by konane - November 1, 2004, 1:22 pm
Iraq was a sponsor and trainer of terrorists with some of the 9-11 hijackers and Abu Nidal having trained within its borders with full knowledge and consent of Saddam and his spawn. Harborer and sponsor of terror is how Iraq is defined by thinking people who do not ignore proof.

Saddam was in bed with the UN regarding "Oil For Food" program which the UN and European nations which were providing him arms are trying desperately to suppress.

Have posted before and since you seem to be thin and keep asking the same question about the WMD's our intelligence and also Israeli intelligence both of which are the best in the world tracked trucks going out of Iraq into Syria and Lebanon where the WMD's are buried. Try updating yourself as to factual reports. We're not rattling Syria's chain because they are known to have a WMD program which they've used on their own people and also in Darfur.

While the UN was purposefully dragging with inspections Saddam was trucking them out. BTW as mentioned before there were precursers to nerve agent chemical weapons found in stockpiles of insecticides .... in areas where no crops were being grown. Wake uuuuuuup!!!

Kerry is treasonous, treacherous, UN-trustworthy on and on ... and unfortunately you are too brainwashed into blindness, convinced as to the "intellectual superiority" of the left to know the difference if it flew up your nose straight into your brain.

War hero, I don't think so. If he were a war hero he would sign the form to release ALL his service records so we could decide for ourselves. He hasn't because he has too much to gain from hiding the truth.

Keep wishing, Babel but your dog, while he may steal the election, won't hunt and will be the greatest failure this nation has seen in its entire history.

Followers can't lead ... they wait for someone else to give the signals which is exactly what I see in Kerry.

You must be a Lottery Post member to post comments to a Blog.

Register for a FREE membership, or if you're already a member please Log In.