First, destroying al Qaeda and other anti-American terror groups must remain our top priority. While the Administration has largely prosecuted this war with vigor, it also has made costly mistakes. The biggest, in my view, was their reluctance to translate their robust rhetoric into American military engagement in Afghanistan. They relied too much on local warlords to carry the fight against our enemies and this permitted many al Qaeda members, and according to evidence, including Osama bin Laden himself, to slip through our fingers. Now the Administration must redouble its efforts to track them down. And we need to pressure Pakistan to get control of its territories along the Afghanistan border, which have become a haven for terrorists.
Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament. And that made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the perils of war for themselves rather than keeping the focus on the perils posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal. Indeed, for a time, the Administration's unilateralism, in effect, elevated Saddam in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he never would have achieved on his own, undermining America's standing with most of the coalition partners which had joined us in repelling the invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.
In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat
http://www.truthout.com/docs_02/012503A.kerry.no.rush.htmThis speech does not differ from Kerry's floors speech in the Senate before voting on the use of force authorization, his op ed articles in Septemener 2002, and January 2003. And it is the same as the sapeech he just gave before the National Guard.
Kerry clearly saw that Al Qaeda was our biggest threat, and his plans made AL Qaeda and Osama first priority. Then and only then Saddam, and to go after Saddam after getting as much international support as possible.
I do not know why the Kerry campaign does not give a list of Kerrys speeches on Iraq and terrorism in chronological order, and show the consistancy of Kerry's ideas about Iraq, in order to get rid ot the accusations that he has flip-flopped on Iraq and Terrorism, as well as the accusations that he had and has no plan. It is cleart from the record, that Kerry has had a consistant plan, which if it had been followed would have us considerably safer from terrorism than the Bush adminstration has made us, as under Kerry's plan, the odds that Osama and his lieutenants being in custody at this point would be far greater. Osama is still fre to pursue other sources of WMD's to attack the U.S. with. Not only will he not get them from Saddam, he would not have been able to given the curret reports.
It would have been wiser and safer to pursue those who were seeking out the WMD's and who would have used them.They can still seek them and use them.
As Kerry indicated, Saddam could have waited. Osama should not have.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
