Reply #41: lol [View All]

[w4rma]

My browswer didn't load the whole page and when I went back to it, it only loaded what was already in the browser's cache.

Nonetheless, it is my opinion that you have been extremely condensending on this thread Feanorcurufinwe. I'm sorry that I questioned your intellegence. Now, I'd like you to apologize for questioning my honesty.

Your quote is still out of context of the speech. This speech was extremely critical of Bush's plans to invade Iraq and his insane overall foreign policy:
…
I believe that the President undercuts our long-term national security interests and the established international order when he seeks to replace decades of bipartisan consensus on the use of American force with a new doctrine justifying preemptive attacks against other nation states - not because of their current action or imminent threat, but to preempt a threat that could arise in the future.
…
I believe it is my patriotic duty to urge a different path to protecting America's security: To focus on al Qaeda, which is an imminent threat, and to use our resources to improve and strengthen the security and safety of our home front and our people while working with the other nations of the world to contain Saddam Hussein.

Had I been a member of the Senate, I would have voted against the resolution that authorized the President to use unilateral force against Iraq - unlike others in that body now seeking the presidency.

I do not believe the President should have been given a green light to drive our nation into conflict without the case having first been made to Congress and the American people for why this war is necessary, and without a requirement that we at least try first to work through the United Nations.

That the President was given open-ended authority to go to war in Iraq resulted from a failure of too many in my party in Washington who were worried about political positioning for the presidential election.

To this day, the President has not made a case that war against Iraq, now, is necessary to defend American territory, our citizens, our allies, or our essential interests.
…
He says we don't need more inspections, because we already have enough information to justify going to war.

My question is, why not use our information to help the UN disarm Iraq without war?

Secretary Powell's recent presentation at the UN showed the extent to which we have Iraq under an audio and visual microscope. Given that, I was impressed not by the vastness of evidence presented by the Secretary, but rather by its sketchiness. He said there would be no smoking gun, and there was none.
…
In short, America may have to go to war with Iraq, but we should not rush into war - especially without broad international support.

Now, I am not among those who say that America should never use its armed forces unilaterally. In some circumstances, we have no choice. In Iraq, I would be prepared to go ahead without further Security Council backing if it were clear the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein was imminent, and could neither be contained nor deterred.

However, that case has not been made, and I believe we should continue the hard work of diplomacy and inspection.

We should work with the Security Council to push the UN inspection process as hard as possible, as fast as possible, and with as much help as possible from our intelligence assets. We should continue as long as there is progress toward disclosure and disarmament and the inspectors tell us credibly that there is promising work to be done. We should have the inspectors report back every 30 or 60 days, so that we can assess whether to continue on course or take tougher action.

If particular weapons of mass destruction are discovered, by the inspectors or otherwise, they must be destroyed immediately, by the inspectors or by the Iraqi government. If they are not, their destruction should be accomplished by military action under the UN. I believe that every member of the Security Council would support such an approach.

Saddam Hussein must not have weapons of mass destruction. But particular weapons can be destroyed without an all-out war to impose a change of regimes. That is a much larger step, for which the case has not yet been made.

We must remember, though, that Iraq is not the greatest danger we face today. Consider, to begin with, North Korea.
…
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean021703sp.html