John Kerry Iraq War Quotes
Draw your own conclusions and tell us what you think about the following quotes from John Kerry and others about the Iraq War. The quotes have been verified as true by TruthOrFiction.com.
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do” Rep.
Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction… So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003
Mike Jacobson Says: September 22nd, 2004 at 10:02 pm
funny that John Kerry said that about Saddam Hussein only last year. a few days ago I saw him speak at NYU and he didn’t mention any of those things. in fact, he said that he didn’t think disarming Saddam Hussein was a cause worth going to war for. hmmm…
zoot potatoe Says: September 23rd, 2004 at 1:26 am
It probably would be wise to change the name from “John Kerry quotes” to “democrat quotes”, as only 3 or soo are from Kerry himself…
and I never really found the voting quote contradictory. If I were faced with “evidence” that saddam had and was ready to use weapons, i’d vote yes too. But it appears that someone messed up somewhere, and now that more faults from the bush admin come up from going to war (like, evidence bush planned this from the begining and stuff), it seems like bush didn’t do it right..
of course, the other point here is that Kerry is denouncing the war because of his poll numbers, but I still dont find his october 2002 quote as contradictory as some he’s done to smaller bands of supporters (like georgewbush.com’s flip flop game gives some other examples… that game sucks but it’s so… entertaining. I win every time!)
mickey mouse Says: September 28th, 2004 at 2:19 am
You’ve got to be joking. You can’t call someone a liar, a flip-flopper, a waffler, etc just for changing their mind as the evidence changes. A doctor doesn’t continue to call something the flu when he is presented with undeniable evidence that it is something worse. Likewise, the future president of the United States (whoever that shall be post-November 2nd) should be able to make a different diagnosis after the evidence changes. Would you rather a president stick with a bad choice, or eventually choose the right one? I don’t think it’s that hard of a question. Please, you don’t have to vote for Kerry, but come up with a better argument. This one is completely illogical and is just getting old. If anything, I think it helps Kerry’s case. At least this candidate obviously uses his brain. The most intelligent person in the world is one who is willing to admit he was wrong.
a rep. Says: September 30th, 2004 at 1:57 am
He in august Kerry said he still would have voted to authorize the use of force knowing what we know now. Well today, 9-29-04, on good morning america Kerry said “We should not have gone to war knowing the information we know today.” Try and explain that one my liberal friends.
Karen van Hoek Says: October 4th, 2004 at 8:52 am
John Kerry has had one consistent position on the Iraq war: That Saddam Hussein was a serious threat, that we needed to get tough with him, but that there were smarter ways to get tough than rushing into a near-singlehanded war with Iraq. Very simple. The GOP has worked overtime to portray Kerry’s one position as flip-flopping, via tricks such as the Flipper video, where they chop up his statements so as to imply that he meant the opposite of what he actually meant. We debunk the Flipper video clip by clip at Flipper video debunking. The rest of the site KerryOnIraqWar documents Kerry’s consistent position on Iraq with abundant material from his own statements. The image of Kerry as a flip-flopper is a GOP marketing strategy, not reality; I challenge anyone who thinks it’s real to examine the evidence and see for themselves.
Karen van Hoek Says: October 4th, 2004 at 8:54 am
BTW, in answer to comment #4 above, it’s easy to explain — Kerry said he would’ve voted Yes on the authorization of the use of force because that was part of putting the pressure on Saddam to let the weapons inspectors back in. That’s entirely different from saying we should have gone to war. Apples and oranges.
Allwissender Says: October 5th, 2004 at 9:26 am
auf gehts georrrrge!!!
john go home, make your wars alone
brooks Says: October 28th, 2004 at 1:57 am
They call him flipper, flipper.
brooks Says: October 28th, 2004 at 2:00 am
I think the best reason to go to war is to protect yourself, and I think that even if there wasn’t a WMD program in Iraq, we thought there was, we had enough evidence to believe there was, and that’s good enough for me. I didn’t lose a loved one on 9/11. I lost thousands of loved ones.
Joe Says: November 25th, 2004 at 3:58 am
So where are these weapons of mass destruction. Where are the manufacturing facilities for these weapons and if the worlds most wanted man really has been arrested then why haven’t we heard about him from The Bush News Network…ah hum, I mean CNN. Show me the link between Afghanistan and Iraq, show me just how free the Iraqi people are, show me and Iraqi who wants to be occupied the way they are, and then maybe I’ll start listening to you war mongering republicans. Kerry understands the horrors of an unjustified war because he didn’t coward from it like Bush did some 30 years ago.
Anonymous Says: November 25th, 2004 at 4:14 am
Anyone who says that Saddam Hussein didn’t have ties to terrorism and Al-Qaeda is either very stupid or has their head stuck very far into the sand. That’s like claiming that Yassar Arafat didn’t have terrorist connections. The best and the brightest all thought (that includes the greatest intelligence networks in the world) that Hussein had WMDs, and frankly, I don’t think they were wrong. Maybe we should send some folks into Syria, or just probe the entire desert? I’m quite positive we’d come up with something.
Might I remind you that Kerry thought we did too.
Iraq isn’t occupied, that’s liberal crap. We are bringing the Middle East down the path of freedom, as seen by the recent elections in Afghanistan and the Israeli withdrawl from the Gaza Strip. Come on, man! Don’t be an idiot, at least read something other than your local lib newspaper and the press releases from CBS. The Iraqis respect the soldiers who are there dying for their freedom, and they are overjoyed that we are sacraficing ourselves for them. It is not, however, all for them, because a more peaceful world would result from a free and peaceful Middle East – which is where we’re heading. God forbid we lose sight of that road.
Serb Militant Says: November 25th, 2004 at 4:15 am
I feel it necessary to inform you that the above post was mine.
Brick Says: January 7th, 2005 at 2:14 am
I love lamp…
Sean Says: January 7th, 2005 at 6:57 am
Your absolutely right about Iraq Serb.
elise Says: January 7th, 2005 at 3:16 pm
remember at the beginning of the war it was said that large 18 wheelers could be seen leaving Iraq for Syria? Remember the illegal gas being pumped to Syria from Iraq? The two countries were buddies all the way. I think that is where a lot of our problems now are coming from. We are messing up a bunch of play houses like we did France, Germany and Russia when we went in there. And of course the Scientist in Iraq since then have said they didn’t work on it they “just told Sadamm” they had. Who would have wanted to lie to him and risk the punishment he would give out. Also, except for a few liberals, people who have been over there say that 3/4 of Iraq is safe, happy and moving forward. The Sunni triangle seems to be where the problems are and I know that covers large cities & millions of people, but it is not all bad in the whole of Iraq from what I have heard.
Sean B Says: January 28th, 2005 at 9:46 pm
Important that you know. Atomic weapon technology is going to be 50 years old come august 6th, this 2005. How long do you really believe that nations, groups, even individuals for that matter – to develope atomic weapons? Uranium exists in tons of places in the world.
It is completely ignorant to think for a second that you can police the entire world and keep anybody and everybody from developing those weapons. Its just not feasible. The right solution is to create great trade relations, cultural relations, and stronger bonds with the governments of those countries. Why? Besides creating a road map to world peace your also getting a small chance that human civialization might actually survive.
If you think that everyone in the rest of the world can be prevented from becomming 50 years behind the US technology wise, your wrong. Plain and simple. And by the way, every time you attack a nation, and aggravate the rest of the world (the big “other” part of the globe that isnt USA) You create enemies. Those enemies will hate you more – and more – and more – until they just dont care anymore and want you all dead. They will use asynchronous warfare against the USA. Your army will not be able to defend against such attacks. The so called Civilian Guerilla warfare – also called Terrorism.
They wont fight you head on – because – that would lead to defeat. Instead, they will use small, cellular attacks. This kind of strategy is very difficult – and in some cases – impossible to defend against because there are so many different ways, and combination of ways that you are vulnerable.
The only choice – is to make friends. Nothing wrong with opening upto new cultures, new people and treating them as equals.
This is a war that wont be won with weapons. Its a war that will be won by creating a world in which cultures want to co-exist. It is possible. Look to canada, and you will see a thriving multicultural society which actually works.
Or, if you choose to disagree and explicitly agree with the unbridled use of war – you will infact – die by the sword. Probably bringing down all of mankind at the same time.
Cheers.
Sean
Bonniem Says: January 29th, 2005 at 3:22 am
That is what was said years ago when we started giving money to other countries to help them. That it was goodwill money. Don’t remember a whole lot about that theory during those days, but I do remember that we were helping out other countries,because we wanted to befriend them, and be there first before (I suppose the communist) because if they were hungry or poor, etc. they would turn to the first helping hand . We were to make friends with them so they would be on our good side, so to speak. Do you remember ?
Sean Says: January 30th, 2005 at 5:07 am
Sean B,
This is the Real Sean. Your comments are interesting; however, there are some serious problems with your analysis.
First off, there IS Uranium all over the world; however, the isotope (def., isotope: any of two or more species of atoms of a chemical element with the same atomic number and nearly identical chemical behavior but with differing atomic mass or mass number and different physical properties.) that is weapons grade, Uranium-235, is actually rare and hard to find. It is also difficult to mine, handle, transport and use to make into an….Atomic Bomb! Ohh..that’s right I said the evil word. There is also an isotope of plutonium that is weapons grade, and the same can be said for that substance. So your idea that anyone will be able to find, mine, transport, breakdown (enrich), and use Uranium/Plutonium to make an….Atomic Bomb (ohhh, the “A” word) is not only naive, but it’s false. If you are so worried about nuclear weapons in the wrong hands then you should be preaching nuclear proliferation not, “It’s ok, do what you want, we’ll accept your violent, tyrannical hate spreading countries no matter how much you attack us.”
Next up, your right to think that we can’t police the whole world. So I ask, “what’s the solution?”, and I answer, “We must spread democracy, in the form of Representative Republics like ours, by planting the seeds of freedom in hostile, tyrannical countries that fester feelings like: hate, envy, terrorism, etc.” Once people are free to govern themselves they will elect peaceful, docile, and friendly governments that will be allies to the U.S.
As for the next point you mentioned: “And by the way, every time you attack a nation, and aggravate the rest of the world (the big “other” part of the globe that isnt USA) You create enemies. Those enemies will hate you more – and more – and more – until they just dont care anymore and want you all dead.” My response to this is simple…..Where the hell have you BEEN!? Have you been living in a cave, or perhaps the basement of the Democratic National Committee? Listen Up! THEY ALREADY HATE US. THEY ALREADY WANT US DEAD. THEY ALREADY WANT TO DESTROY OUR WAY OF LIFE, AND FREEDOM ALONG WITH IT. THAT’S WHY THEY CALL THEM ISLAMIC MILITANT TERRORISTS! By the way, where did you come up with that cute little politically correct term….how did you put it…..Civilian Guerilla warfare.
Here’s the truth. This is a world that is governed by the aggressive use of force. It always has been, and it probably always will be. The rest of the world DOESN’T HAVE TO LIKE US! BUT THEY WILL RESPECT US! I’m so sick and tired of you peacenik, liberal, card-carrying, amnesty international, panty waist, sissies I could scream. Why must the rest of the world like us? How would you go about getting the rest of the world to like us? What’s your answer? Disarming our military and sending them all our money, so the third world dictators can build up armies and crush us?
Let me give you a little recent history on appeasement. That word that basically describes your foreign policy. Spain tried it at the beginning of the Iraq War. They pulled out so that the terrorists would know that they didn’t mean them any harm. They’ve been attacked several times since then. Germany has been attacked as well, and they were never in the war. But you know who hasn’t been attacked since the start of the War on Terror. That’s right, the U.S. Here’s a little less recent history on appeasement. Europe tried it with Hitler…..nothing else needs be said.
You bring up some important points and concerns; however, your solutions and the reasoning for them is not only incorrect and fool hardy, but it is dangerous to the survival of freedom in this world. Get with the program. This is the real world….not Camelot.
As for Canada, I suggest you take another look. And if you find out you like it there…MOVE THERE!
Rob Says: January 30th, 2005 at 11:48 pm
Sean, as usual, is blowing out both sides of his mouth! First he says the way to make the world more peaceful is to spread democracy so people will elect governments that are “peaceful, docile, and friendly governments that will be allies to the U.S.”. He has integrated so well the current administration propaganda. But then his true feelings come out: “This is a world that is governed by the aggressive use of force.” WOW, what a philosophy. First I’d like to see Sean square that statement with his initial statement. Second, if that is how you feel, then you deserve EVERYTHING insurgents/terrorists/guerilla’s throw at you, because of you want to live by sword, you are going to die by it (Sean B is exactly correct). Why would you expect ANYTHING else from the so-called terrorists when you have just announced that America is a terrorist state, one which imposes it’s will through force and aggression. Don’t you see at least the slightest contradiction in a proposal to impose democracy on the world through the barrel of a gun?
I don’t respect the US for that Sean, and I certainly don’t respect you fpr saying it. You can tough talk all you want and all it is going to get are more enemies by the thousands, and you will deserve every one of them. Hopefully, not many Americans agree with you on that score, for if they do, American’s future is going to be a painful one.
Sean, you have said quite a number of idiotic things on this site, but you just outdid yourself, and with one statement (if it represents a true American idea) have given anti-American forces all the legitimacy they need to continuing their struggle against American fascists like you…
Sean Says: January 31st, 2005 at 4:13 pm
Rob, if you had read my comment correctly (that is if you can read). You’d see that I clearly pointed out that brutal dictators and terrorists CANNOT be dealt with with diplomacy or appeasement or just “being nice to them”. That’s is because the only thing they understand is violence and use of military power. They must be defeated on the Battle field; NOT IN THE CONFERENCE ROOMS OF THE U.N.!
Did you even watch ANY OF THE NEWS COVERAGE ON THE IRAQI ELECTION? THE IRAQI’S WERE ALL DANCING IN THE STREETS, SINGING, AND CELEBRATING. I’m pretty sure the people of Iraq are DAMN happy that we imposed democracy on them BY THE USE OF A GUN, YOU FRIGIN’ IDIOT!!!!
This is all the response that your comments deserve; I refuse to waste anymore time on youR non-sense. Get a clue, then we’ll talk.
P.S.: if you want to see a scared little boy look in the mirror, little one.
Junkman Says: December 11th, 2006 at 1:27 am
I agree that harsh dictators etc cannot be dealt with “Peacefully”. Im sorry the world isn’t a rainbow of bright happy colors. Hey this shouldn’t be too hard to figure out lets compare it to something smaller then countries. Bullies in school perhaps? You are being bullied in school so you decide “Hey if I become overly nice to him he will in turn change his lifestyle for me” – nope.
Besides basically what your telling me is that dictators (lets just say Kim Jong il) who spent thousands of dollars building a bomb will just dismantle it because we said “Hey we do not approve of it!” Thats like asking a robber “Please dont take anything.”
Wouldn’t work for Hitler won’t work for them.