Kerry Says Saddam 'Might Be Gone' Had He Been President

island911 · 09:14 AM

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5.htm

Quote:

NBCNEWS Brokaw interviewed John Kerry Thursday evening.

Brokaw: "If you had been President, Saddam Hussein would be in power."

Kerry: "Not necessarily."

Brokaw: "You said you wouldn't go to war against him."

Kerry: "That's not true. Because under the inspection process, Saddam Hussein was required to destroy those kinds of materials and weapons."

Brokaw: "But he wasn't destroying them."

Kerry: "That's what you have inspectors for. That's why I voted for the threat of force, because he only does things when you have a legitimate threat of force. It's irresponsible to suggest that if I were President, he wouldn't be gone. He might be gone, because if he hadn't complied, we might have had to go to war, but if we did, we would have gone with allies, so the American people weren't carrying the entire burden. And the entire world would understand why we did it."

And you lib's think that GW is a stupid, out-of-touch with reality kind of guy.

island911 · 10-29-2004, 09:45 AM

"Not necessarily ...
"if ...
"might have ...
"but if ...
"we might ...

topped off with:

"we would have gone with allies."

BWHahahahhha

ah, yeah. . .that one doesn't EVEN get a "maybe, if, woulda, coulda, shoulda. . .

Hello. . .Kerry? . .. .The allies where in bed with Saddam.

--How stupid is this guy, Kerry?

Okay, maybe he's not stupid there. Maybe, he just see's that the voters are that stupid, to believe his delusions of his "arm-twisting" charm.

10-29-2004, 09:51 AM

No, Island. You were right the first time - he's stupid.

bryanthompson · bryanthompson's Garage

Kerry's LYING out of his ASS as USUAL.

His complaint was that we didn't go with the French, Germans, and Russians. Well, They were being paid off by Saddam (TEN BILLION DOLLARS BETWEEN THEM), and they were actively trying to lift sanctions.

There's no f'n way he could have convinced them to go against Saddam.

Hugh R · 10-29-2004, 10:06 AM

No, you both have it wrong, kerry thinks we're stupid

dhoward · dhoward's Garage

I might be Superman.
No, wait. I want to keep Bush.....

island911 · 10-29-2004, 10:10 AM

I'm just happy that Kerry now has the confidence to BE HIMSELF again.

He had been holding the façade of a reasonable person, for a while there.

chibone_914 · 02:26 PM

Kerry in a "one on one" interview really shows his true indiscisiveness on the issues whereas President Bush is equally as comfortable in the same situation because he doesn't have to talk out of his ass!

President Bush is going to be re-elected simply because he has shown he IS a leader that does not sway to popular opinion. (aka; Kerry/Clinton) And bottom line, he has made progress in shutting down the terrorist organizations, he will not back off. And you libs out there wonder why France, Germany, Al Jazeera, and Yasser Arafat all endorse Sen Kerry? Because they all know Kerry will cower and back off to appease the european constituency. What a F**kin' sellout! And a fake and a phony!

Give me a real democratic candidate like Sen Joe Libermann, now this guy has some credibility. Libermann doesn't give a crap about making the euro-trash happy, just do the right thing at the right time. Hell, even Zell Miller would have been a great candidate! But Kerry??? Give me a break....

cool_chick · 10-29-2004, 04:45 PM

lol indiscisiveness?

He's saying the UN was there inspecting...if they weren't allowed to do their work, then perhaps the need would've risen to go into Iraq. But there was no need at the time because Iraq was contained with the weapons inspectors there. And he's right.

Meanwhile, other countries that weren't/still aren't contained...well.....look at where they are now!

lendaddy · 10-29-2004, 05:17 PM

This is why Kerry's handlers won't let him do many one on one interviews, it's too easy to get cornered like this. Heck Woodward never did get that interview Kerry promised him.

The UN unamimously said Sadaam was not allowing inspections. What was Kerry waiting for again? Don't make me laugh, he voted against Gulf War I. PLease give me your rational on that one. The guy is indefensible.

cool_chick · 10-29-2004, 05:21 PM

The UN was THERE INSPECTING. We told the UN to leave so we can invade. The UN was there just before we invaded, hence knowing about that stach of weapons that's now "conveniently destoryed" (or wait, was it the Russians....no, that won't work, they were asking the UN to investigate this "loss" and we said ... nah, no need....that was back on Tuesday).

lendaddy · 10-29-2004, 05:29 PM

It's just killing ya that the US may not have screwed the pooch here huh. But seriously, The UN was there but they were being blocked from any real inspecting.

As far as this 1/1000th of the weapons you are so concerned about, the guy in the press conference said it is standard procedure to destroy any ammo/ordnance they confiscate. Should they haul it back to the US from now on just to prove to their own citizens they're not lying? Get real.

cool_chick · 10-29-2004, 05:45 PM

It's not killing me because I know that that's not true.

How were they able to tag and seal these weapons in the first place? They were there in January, then back in March just before the invasion.

they were doing their job.

And this 1/1000 weapons.....there are tons that were confiscated and are NOT destroyed.

lendaddy · 10-29-2004, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cool_chick
It's not killing me because I know that that's not true.

How were they able to tag and seal these weapons in the first place? They were there in January, then back in March just before the invasion.

they were doing their job.

And this 1/1000 weapons.....there are tons that were confiscated and are NOT destroyed.

So you are happy believing the US screwed up? OK I guess.....

Are you seriously unaware that the inspectors were being held at the front gates of plants while trucks were leaving from the back, not being allowed into certaun sites, etc...?/? Why do you think your mighty and all-knowing UN unanimously said he was NOT complying with the resolution? Cause he wouldn't supply the inspectors with a sack lunch?

You're funny

dd74 · 10-29-2004, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lendaddy
As far as this 1/1000th of the weapons you are so concerned about, the guy in the press conference said it is standard procedure to destroy any ammo/ordnance they confiscate. Should they haul it back to the US from now on just to prove to their own citizens they're not lying? Get real.

Hi, Lendaddy - it's me again, and I'm here to say, umm...no...er...maybe they should have cameras with them to record the destroying of any ammo/ordinance they confiscate - they surely had enough cameras embedded during the invasion, right? Just pluck up a news crew and say, "Hey, we're going to blow up some Iraqi boom-boom!" and let the camera work it's magic.

Otherwise, 350, 370 or 4 billion tons - who cares? Unless it's written, recorded, photographed or whatever - but not just given in impromptu "spoken word" by officials like some sort of open mic poetry night, well it's not proven, and thus not true.

So yes, haul the ammo/ordinance back to U.S., so we can jab sticks into it - just to see that its real and honestly "confiscated."

See you next time.

P.S.: that was easy.

lendaddy · 10-29-2004, 06:18 PM

Ok, I see you're just having fun with me

Ok I'm your toy. Anyway he said that his group had destroyed over 7,000 tons of munitions in lots of 10,000 pounds. And I'm sure they have some pictures for your viewing displeasure. Don't worry, they'll miss an AK in the broom closet of a middle school somewhere soon and you'll have another issue to ***** about

On a serious note, did you guys hear where they found 9 million AK rounds built into the walls of a residential home!!!!!!!!!!! That's some crazy ****!

ronin · 10-31-2004, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cool_chick
How were they able to tag and seal these weapons in the first place? They were there in January, then back in March just before the invasion.

and you believe that the inspection and subsequent tagging is going to stop any Iraqi from taking any of this ammo if they so choose before the Americans arrive? now that's sheer idiocy

cool_chick · 10-31-2004, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ronin
and you believe that the inspection and subsequent tagging is going to stop any Iraqi from taking any of this ammo if they so choose before the Americans arrive? now that's sheer idiocy

What the hell does that have to do with this thread? Please read my comments and the context before you jump in left field. This topic has nothing to do with the weapons being looted.

island911 · 10-31-2004, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cool_chick
What the hell does that have to do with this thread? Please read my comments and the context before you jump in left field. This topic has nothing to do with the weapons being looted.

well, if you knew the context of my first post, in this thread, you would know that the "missing" weapons material was exactly the topic. . . which kerry was being quizzed on. (read: 1000+ time that material would be there AND in the hands of a madman)

10-31-2004, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ronin
and you believe that the inspection and subsequent tagging is going to stop any Iraqi from taking any of this ammo if they so choose before the Americans arrive? now that's sheer idiocy

Now Ralph, you know as well as I do that the Irecki and Russian bunker looters would not dare take any tagged ammo. Those guys play by the rules!

This coolchick guy just can't stand that his man Kerry screwed the pooch by trying to make this firecracker non issue into a campaign issue. Mr Kerry pissed in his own Cherrios with this lie.