Quote:
Originally posted by piker
These men also lived with Kerry in veitnam, it's not just about the river. But again, I wasn't there so I won't judge... But, I think the Swift Boat people have earned a right to speak. And Kerry again doesnt deny their claims...
And it was verbatim I believe their are a host of others... I'm sure google would provide them if asked... The point is Kerry lied too with your argument that the president lied... It was faulty intelligence... but even if Saddam had no WMD's he still could make a lot within short notice and possibly supply them to his terroist connections... His ability to produce them was confirmed with a NY Times interview of the former WMD program leader for Iraq. The bigger point is that before the Clinton people got involved Kerry though Iraq was better after Saddam. (I think who can really tell)
Hrm, enlighten me then, why did he goto paris?
|
These people only became anti-Kerry when he started his post-service protests. They were then and are still irate about it and admit such. I can understand that they thought the people they knew were thought to have died for no reason in a war we shouldn't have been in. I can understand their anger. I can also see how the story has changed over the years and morphed back again. I'm going to try to find an O'Neil quote when he was standing next to and endorsing Kerry as a Senatorial candidate. It'll probably take me a min. I'd post it now, but i'm super tired and don't want to lose my train of thought.
Any gov't in the world has the potential to make WMD. Ones like North Korea and Iran have taken the lesson from Iraq and increased the speed and strength of their programs because they know we will not invade a country with actual weapons. We can't go around and attack every country that may one day possibly pose a threat. Maybe we can, but does that make it the right thing to do?
Of course Iraq is better without a brutal dictator. That isn't disputed. The way we went about the whole thing turned off most of the world and shat away any good will after 9/11. The world was with us when we went to Afghan. and for good reason. The fact that Saddam was a brutal dictator has nothing to do with the many valid reasons we did invade. If it was about human rights Iraq would have been pretty low on the list of places to invade. It simply makes a better emotional and non-logical argument to make it sound like a humanitarian mission.
I'll look for a link to the transcripts of his testimony about Paris after I find the O'Neil endorsement.