http://www.washtimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm During a 1997 debate on CNN's "Crossfire," Sen. John Kerry, now the Democratic presidential nominee, made the case for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq. So reveals Rep. Peter King, New York Republican, who appeared with Mr. Kerry on the program. Mr. King says the U.N. Security Council had just adopted a resolution against Iraq that was watered down at the behest of the French and the Russians. Yet the candidate who now criticizes President Bush for ignoring French and Russian objections to the Iraq war blasted the two countries, claiming that they were compromised by their business dealings with Baghdad. "We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians," said Mr. Kerry. "We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest." While no "Crossfire" transcripts from 1997 are available, Mr. King in recent days produced a tape of the show, sharing it with New York radio host Monica Crowley for broadcast, and this Inside the Beltway column for publication. Stay tuned.
When it's all said and done US must defend it's own turf. The UN never had a beef with US invading Afghanistan looking for OBL (the man that killed thousands of American citizens). The problem the UN had/has is with Bush invading Iraq. Looks like they were right! we could have invaded Iraq any time. Bush ignored what happened on 9/11/2001 and went after Iraq............. WMD's?
WMD's or a connection to Al Qaeda either one is all I need to justify it. If Iraq was not connected to Al Qaeda, what is al Zarqawi doing there? He could fight the US in Afghanistan if that's all he cared about. The whole oil for food thing is thing is the connection. The evidence Saddam was sending funds to al Qaeda is there, it is just taking time to get to the bottom of it, because the UN is tring to cover their a$$es. Currently there are several investigations into the connection underway. They won't be concluded before the election, but that's when I believe the truth will come out. I may be right, you may be right, but it will take time to figure it out.
you are still ignoring what i have expplained to you many times, the iraqi ignoring of the terms of the cease fire that ended the 1991 war to liberate kuwait.
After 9/11/01, if you looked, walked, talked or smelled like a terrorist then you were a terrorist. Going into Iraq and removing Saddam hurt future al Qaida efforts. And we're all safer because of it.
i figure 13 years of non-compliance is enough. do you see how our relations with libya are improving? dont you see why this is? it is because leaders of other countries know that america will back up their words. if we tell libya we do not like their weapons, and they should get rid of them, then libya knows they damn well would be better off doing it, because bush doesnt **** around. if you never invade iraq, saddam steals the oil for food money, does whatever the hell he wants, it isnt just iraq that goes to hell. other world leaders see that you can get away with whatever you want. harbor terrorists, kill whoever you dont like, be a murderous dictator, fund wmd, whatever. the difference is huge, if we show the world we are not kidding. if you pass some weak UN resolutions and sit on your hands, the bad guys will run wild. this is so simple, and yet all people talk about is oil money and cronies, because every idiot loves a conspiracy theory. you think i want to support bush because i am blind stupid christian right wing follower? of course not, i am not convinced that bush is even a particularly intelligent man. but his forein policy performance is excellent, and the weak **** that kerry talks is dangerous.
Quit ducking the issue of the thread, Crawfish. What's your take on Kerry's flip-flop on this issue? Sounds to me like his 1997 version of how things should be is what happened...and is now at odds with what he said he would have done. You want a change in the White House? Vote for this guy. You'll get a change every day.
Syria might be turning things around a bit too. There is talk they might help in securing their border in Iraq. Now I wouldn't trust Syria, and I doubt Bush does either, but it's a damn good start. Saudia Arabia has even stepped up their fight against Al Qeada, neither will ever do enough but it still helps us and hurts the terrorists. They know the consequences now. It's amazing what keeping your word will get you. When Bush is re-elected I expect Syria and Iran, and maybe North Korea, to all of a sudden be very open to what the U.S. has to say.
He doesn't have a take. He is remaining silent (which is, of course, exactly what liberals do when they are challenged with the facts.)
