Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dissention
You finally said it! Hooray! 
Kerry advocated air strikes to make Saddam comply with IAEA and UNSCOM inspections (you know, the org's that he kicked out after it was discovered that some of the inspectors were US spies). What he did not advocate was invading the country. See the difference? |
I see the difference, but my point is in 2002 he used the same rationale to advocate and support W using force "if necessary" against Iraq and to this day he has not backed off of his position (since 1998) that SH had WMD and was a threat to the world. That is the same position W has. So, the two are in this together IMO. And, I still maintain that the 1998 vote was made with the clear understanding that the missile strikes could start an all out war because it was widely believed at the time that SH would retaliate by striking Isreal. I mean I remember reading about Clinton having to threaten Israel with huge consequences if it responded in kind to SH's threatened retalitory missile launching. So, Clinton's missile launching was made with the full knowledge that it could start a war that would have been IMO far worse than the current one, which does not involve Israel in the fighting, etc.
In the end, I totally get that Kerry did not order the US to invade Iraq. W did and the buck stops there as it concerns W. All I am saying is Kerry has been calling for and promoting this same type of thing since 1998, he has not to this day backed off of that position, and he totally espoused and still espouses the whole SH had WMD and therefore he must be removed rhetoric (i.e. W coerced Kerry into nothing - Kerry was already there and is still there today). I see the slight distinctions in Kerry's position (most of which were made in hindsight) - but to me Kerry is not and never has been against the war in Iraq to remove SH and the WMD. He just, again mostly in hidsight, spun it to say, well although I would have done the same thing, I would not have done it that way. So, Kerry clearly supports the war in Iraq. If someone does not support the war in Iraq and does not believe there are no and never were any WMD, then they have to disagree with Kerry just as they disagree with W on this sole issue (I am not talking about W's lying about the exigent nature of the threat, etc. - that mostly was W on his own). Does that make sense?
Again, I am no fan of W's. I am just pointing out that W and Kerry were on the same page when it came to invading Iraq and W's lying did not get Kerry there.