Who Said This?

JavaFox · Jul 6, 2003, 11:34 AM

"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. [...]

[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. [...]

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. ... This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets. [...]

While we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, in the final analysis ... we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise. "

John Kerry, a Democratic presidential hopeful and vocal opponent of the war. I guess he's changed his mind about Saddam since 1997.

Dom · Jul 6, 2003, 11:37 AM

As you said yourself, Java, peoples opinions change...

JavaFox · Jul 6, 2003, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dom
As you said yourself, Java, peoples opinions change...

Yes, but when I said it, I was referring to Bush and how his opinion --about whether or not we should be an involved, nation-building country-- changed. The reason it changed is obvious -- 9-11. That changed America and American politics, and it turned the country --and the president-- on to the need to FIX rouge states.

Before the war, no significant change had occured since 1997 insofar as Saddam Hussein is concerned. So what changed Kerry's mind?

Dom · Jul 6, 2003, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
Yes, but when I said it, I was referring to Bush and how his opinion --about whether or not we should be an involved, nation-building country-- changed. The reason it changed is obvious -- 9-11. That changed America and American politics, and it turned the country --and the president-- on to the need to FIX rouge states.

Before the war, no significant change had occured since 1997 insofar as Saddam Hussein is concerned. So what changed Kerry's mind?

Life changes people man, it's that simple, people change...regardless of the situation.

JavaFox · Jul 6, 2003, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dom
Life changes people man, it's that simple, people change...regardless of the situation.

I guess Mr. Kerry's convictions mean little when there is political profit to be reaped (remember, for all his hand-wrining, KERRY voted FOR the war)! It's called demagougery.

Dom · Jul 6, 2003, 04:04 PM

It's called politics. All politicians are the same, and they all want the same thing...money.

Falstaff · Jul 6, 2003, 04:09 PM

Mr Kerry is just another democratic mouthpiece for the left, I can't even stand to listen to him, he is like the kid on the bus that won't shutup, you have to go back and smack him. Even some Democrats find him distasteful, but he and Lieberman are tolerated...He is just another troublemaker...and these are his constiuents:

Quote:

KERRY 'REGIME CHANGE' ECHO CHAMBER

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry may have been the first presidential candidate to publicly call for a "regime change" in Washington, but other pillars of the party have been indoctrinating the term for months, research shows.

At a fund-raising concert for House Democrats last October, ActressSingerMotherDirectorCitizenWifeProducer Barbra Streisand called for a "regime change" in Washington and said, "I find bringing the country to the brink of war unilaterally five weeks before an election questionable -- and very, very frightening."

Rev. Jesse Jackson: "We need a regime change in this country." [October 27, 2002]

Louis Farrakhan: "I am crying out to the American people to rise up because your president is the world's threat to peace. When you talk about a regime change in Iraq if this man continues like this there must be a regime change in America. Our president is drunk with the power of the United States of America." [October 9, 2002]

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI): "We need a regime change in the United States." [March 16, 2003]

Former LBJ Attorney General Ramsey Clark: "Regime change! George Bush has to go and we have the power to do it. The officials of the government shall be removed from office for crimes and misdemeanor; their crime against peace, and for use of torture in Iraq." [March 31, 2003]

Michael Moore: "The regime change ought to begin at home." [Nov. 10, 2002]

Actress Susan Sarandon: "I'd like a regime change in the United States, but I would really resent Iraq coming in, throwing out Bush and then telling us who to have." [Jan. 3, 2003] END

~~bluelight~~ · Jul 8, 2003, 08:27 PM

The next president will not be a republican.

They have alredy started the dive.

Actually they started it already before they attacked Iraq by lying to the rest of the world.

That works once.

Not twice.

They will be back again...but first.......

Democratic intermission.

Sorry.

Bluey

JavaFox · Jul 9, 2003, 01:58 AM

Bluelight, unless the Democratic Party can figure out how to reanimate Franklin Delano Roosevelt, they don't have a chance in the world.

Falstaff · Jul 9, 2003, 04:01 AM

Bush has kicked some serious gluteal mass on terrorism all over the world, we are a power to reckoned with again...Donald Rumsfeld gets the credit, but give Tommy Franks and Colin Powell and Bush their due....I see republicans for four more years.....

Jul 6, 2003, 11:34 AM	#1
JavaFox E Pluribus Unum Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,203 Rep Power: 0	Who Said This? "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. [...] [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. [...] 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. ... This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets. [...] While we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, in the final analysis ... we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise. " John Kerry, a Democratic presidential hopeful and vocal opponent of the war. I guess he's changed his mind about Saddam since 1997.

Jul 9, 2003, 04:01 AM	#10
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	yep Bush has kicked some serious gluteal mass on terrorism all over the world, we are a power to reckoned with again...Donald Rumsfeld gets the credit, but give Tommy Franks and Colin Powell and Bush their due....I see republicans for four more years..... __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Jul 6, 2003, 11:37 AM	#2
Dom DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 12,940 Rep Power: 0	As you said yourself, Java, peoples opinions change...

Jul 6, 2003, 04:04 PM	#6
Dom DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 12,940 Rep Power: 0	It's called politics. All politicians are the same, and they all want the same thing...money.

Jul 8, 2003, 08:27 PM	#8
~~bluelight~~ Banned Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,328 Rep Power: 0	The next president will not be a republican. They have alredy started the dive. Actually they started it already before they attacked Iraq by lying to the rest of the world. That works once. Not twice. They will be back again...but first....... Democratic intermission. Sorry. Bluey

Jul 9, 2003, 01:58 AM	Thread Starter #9
JavaFox E Pluribus Unum Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,203 Rep Power: 0	Bluelight, unless the Democratic Party can figure out how to reanimate Franklin Delano Roosevelt, they don't have a chance in the world.