Kerry lied

To put it simply, John Kerry lied about WMD.

…Saddam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction.
According to the CIA's unclassified report released last Friday, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 kilometer restriction imposed by the United Nations in the ceasefire resolution. ...Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort over the last four years. Evidence suggests that it has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard gas, sarin, cyclosarin and VX. Intelligence reports show that Iraq has invested more heavily in its biological weapons programs over the last four years, with the result that all key aspects of this program - R&D, production and weaponization - are active. Most elements of the program are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War. Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives which could bring them to the United States homeland. Since inspectors left, the Iraqi regime has energized its missile program - probably now consisting of a few dozen Scud-type missiles with ranges of 650 to 900 kilometers that could hit Israel, Saudi Arabia and other U.S. allies in the region. In addition, Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents, which could threaten Iraq's neighbors as well as American forces in the Persian Gulf.

Prior to the Gulf War, Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program. Although UNSCOM and IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) inspectors learned much about Iraq's efforts in this area, Iraq has failed to provide complete information on all aspects of its program. Iraq has maintained its nuclear scientists and technicians as well as sufficient dual-use manufacturing capability to support a reconstituted nuclear weapons program. Iraqi defectors who once worked for Iraq's nuclear weapons establishment have reportedly told American officials that acquiring nuclear weapons is a top priority for Saddam Hussein's regime.

According to the CIA's report, all US intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons. The more difficult question to answer is when Iraq could actually achieve this goal. That depends on is its ability to acquire weapons-grade fissile material. If Iraq could acquire this material from abroad, the CIA estimates that it could have a nuclear weapon within one year. Absent a foreign supplier, the CIA estimates that Iraq would not be able to produce a weapon until the last half of this decade. Nevertheless, Saddam Hussein's quest for nuclear weapons and his proven willingness to use weapons of mass destruction underline the very serious threat that the Iraqi regime could pose to the United States and others in the international community if left unchecked., October 09, 2002

Was Kerry misled or did he lie? Either way do we want a liar or someone so easily misled in the White House?

The simple truth is that John Kerry does not have the courage of conviction to be president. Throughout his speech Kerry says that Saddam's intention is to develop WMD, that he had WMD, that he used WMD, and that he will do whatever it takes to have WMD. In short he says Saddam is a clear and present danger... but we can't do anything about it until we can find and document 'detailed evidence'. Which essentially means open and unfettered inspections. Something Saddam continually resisted for the last decade.

He has continually failed to meet the obligations imposed by the international community on Iraq at the end of the Persian Gulf War to declare and destroy its weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems and to forego the development of nuclear weapons., October 09, 2002

Yet we can't do anything about it even after a decade of failing to meet the obligations of the cease fire agreement. We need more sanctions and more attempted inspections.

The question that comes to my mind is what if Saddam had fully complied and all WMD were accounted for and destroyed? Then he said, "Get out!" What then? Would we be safe? Would we be certain that he wouldn't begin anew his quest for WMD?

It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it., October 09, 2002

Yet it is not enough that we know this regime to be hostile to the US, a danger to the world, and a harborer of terrorists. Kerry's position is the same as that of gun control advocates; that it is the weapon that is the danger, not the wielder.

Regime change has been American policy under the Clinton administration and the current U.S. administration. It is a policy that I support. But regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war unless regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. As bad as he is, Saddam Hussein, the dictator, is not the cause of war. Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a different matter., October 09, 2002

Do we fear Great Britain's nuclear arsenal? The prime component of danger is the intent of the wielder, not the weapon. Therefore it is a failure to remove the weapons without removing the intent of the wielder or the wielder himself.

Posted by Eric Simonson at May 22, 2004 1:10 AM