earlier this morning (hang on a sec, it's right here) that quotes
Kerry as saying
"But regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification
for going to war--particularly unilaterally--unless regime change is
the only way to disarm Iraq..."
"In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the
commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work
with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution
setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act
with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by
force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out."
"If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do
so with others in the international community, unless there is a
showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to
this country which requires the President to respond in a way that
protects our immediate national security needs."
And here is an amusing commentary on the flip-flop allegations :)
http://cal.csusb.edu/faculty/philosophy/davidson/kerrychange.htm
Dana
----- Original Message -----
From: G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:11:32 -0500
Subject: Re: The politicization of the Iraq War
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
So when Kerry said he WOULD have invaded Iraq if he knew then what he
knew now.......what did he mean? Was he lying? Was he just kidding?
----- Original Message -----
From: Gruss Gott
To: CF-Community
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: The politicization of the Iraq War
On your points:
1.) I don't think Kerry or just about any other group (by group I mean
the vulcans) wouldn've invaded Iraq. In fact, Colin Powell, Undersec
Armitage, and Bush's Middle East advisor, Gen Anthony Zinni, all were
against it. When Gen Zinni was asked if Iraq was a threat he replied:
<snip>________________________________
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
