What comes next, ladies and gentlemen, Kerry’s questions to Bush from the same article. The AP story is what I’m taking this from now. It’s the New York Times story that simply blames Levin and Biden for informing Kerry that international countries or foreign countries would send their troops in to bail us out, which is bogus. It isn’t going to happen. But back to the AP story. Kerry’s questions to Bush, from the same article. “Kerry challenged Bush to answer some questions of his own. Why he rushed to war without a plan for the peace, why he used faulty intelligence, why he misled Americans about how he would go to war, and why he had not brought other countries to the table.” Well, the first mistake was answering the challenge. The next mistake is issuing these questions because by asking these questions he’s just undercut his first answer. He said, “Even without weapons of mass destruction I would have authorize the use of force.”
What is the point of voting to authorize the use of force if there isn’t going to be any? You know, he has to say this and I’ll tell you why he has to say this: because as president he’s going to want the same authority Bush did. If he’s elected president, he’s going to want to be able to go and do things even if he doesn’t do it. He’s going to want it. So as a presidential candidate he can’t come out and say, “This kind of authority should not be given a president.” He’s undercutting his own reason for wanting to be president if he does that, so he’s sort of trapped. This was a very carefully well-laid trap for Kerry and he’s fell right into it, and then compounded the error by asking these questions. (Kerry sing-song voice impression) “Why did you ruuush to war without a plan for the peeeace? Why did yooou use faulty intelligence, why did you misleeead the Americans about how you would go to waaar?” Well, let’s take the first question. Why did you Rush to war without a plan for peace? There wasn’t a rush to war!
Here’s the Iraq wartime line, folks. January 29th, 2002: Bush State of the Union address labels Iraq part of the axis of evil, vows that the U.S. “will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.” June 2nd, 2002: President Bush publicly introduces the new defense doctrine of preemption in a speech at West Point. In some instances he asserts the U.S. must strike first against another state to prevent a potential threat from growing into an actual one. “Our security will require all Americans to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives.” There’s no rush into war. He prepared us for what was going to happen. He wasn’t lying about anything ever. September 12th, 2002: President Bush’s addresses the UN, challenging them to swiftly enforce their own resolutions against Iraq. If not, Bush contends the U.S. will have no choice but to act on its own against Iraq. September 12th, 2002!
October 11th, 2002: Congress authorizes an attack on Iraq, Kerry votes for it before he votes against it. November 8th, 2002: The UN Security Counsel Unanimously approves Resolution 1441, imposing tough new arms inspections on Iraq. November 18th, 2002: UN weapons inspectors go back to Iraq for the first time in four years. December 21, 2002: President Bush approves the deployment of U.S. troops to the Gulf region. January 28th, 2003: In his State of the Union address, President Bush announces that he is ready to attack Iraq even without a UN mandate. February 14th, 2003: In a UN weapons inspection report on Iraq the chief inspector Hans Blix indicates that slight progress has been made in Iraq’s cooperation with the weapons team. Anti-war nations interpret this as a sign that inspections are yielding modest results and ought to continue. Pro-war nations see it as Iraq’s continued defiance of the international community, which is viewed as a threat to world peace and can only be remedied through force.
February 24th through March 14th, 2003: The U.S. and Britain’s intense lobbying efforts among UN Security Council members to shore up support for a strike on Iraq yield two additional supporters: Spain and Bulgaria. March 20th, 2003: The war begins against Iraq at 5:30 a.m. As far as a plan for peace, you know, Kerry says, “What iiis the plaaaaaan for peace? He rushed to waaaar without a plan for the peeeeace.” It was the exact same plan used in Germany and Japan afterworld world. You take control of the enemy’s country, then you embark upon the long expensive traffic of transforming a country once run by murderous tyrants into a peaceful democratic country. So far, so good. All this is playing out and it’s happening at a more rapid rate than it did in Germany or Japan, folks, if the truth be told. Now, this timeline starts January 29th, 2002 and goes through March 20th, 2003. This is not “a rush to war.” This is 15 months. Fifteen months, and Kerry is sitting there asking, “Why did yoooou rush to waaaar?”
The next business: “Why did you use faulty intelligence?” That question should be rephrased. If Senator Kerry wishes to be honest, that question should be: “Mr. President, why did you and I use faulty intelligence in making our decision to support your action in Iraq?” Kerry just stated above that knowing what you know now you would have still voted for the war. Senator Kerry, how faulty was the intelligence? It fooled you, too. Did you not understand what you were voting for, senator, when you voted to approve the use of force against Iraq? I mean, you missed so many votes, maybe you weren’t familiar with the process and the ramifications of your vote. Are you sure you know how this works? When you vote to authorize the use of force, force is then gonna be used. Do you understand that? He’s always telling us we don’t know how things work in the Senate. I’m wondering if he knows. There was a lot of very good intelligence. It was gathered under an antiquated system created by Bill Clinton and Jamie Gorelick. It’s just it wasn’t able to be used in a timely fashion.
You know, in a normal world the mainstream press would be doing what I am doing in the process of informing you now and dealing with what John Kerry said yesterday. They’re going to ignore this. They’re not going to take up Kerry’s questions, or they are going to take up Kerry’s questions and re-ask them of Bush rather than examining what Kerry is doing here. But this is slipshod, and he’s got to understand that the vast majority of the base that is going to vote for him is not voting for him, they’re voting against Bush, and the main reason is they don’t think Iraq was necessary, and they’re scared to death that going into Iraq has created more terrorists, and now their guy, the vessel for their hatred of George Bush, the reason they’re going to get George Bush thrown out of there so they don’t feel at risk or scared or whatever anymore — this guy has just said, “Hey, I’d have done the same thing Bush did. Even if there were no weapons of mass destruction, I’d have done the same thing.”
So when are we going to get, you know, the director’s cut of Fahrenheit 9/11 that takes into account these changes by the Democrat candidate in his stated policy? But I’m not even halfway through this. He asked a bunch of questions and I’m going to answer them for him. I’m going to show you what an idiotic policy maneuver he has made here by accepting this challenge and trying to turn it around. I’ll tell you something else that I found out, folks. I’m going to give you a little exclusive here. Bush and Kerry are going to find themselves side by side at separate campaign appearances in Oregon, in Portland soon. Bush’s schedule has been asset for a long time. Kerry is pulling another Davenport, Iowa. He has redone his schedule and is going to try to end up side by side at a Bush rally in Portland, Oregon sometime in the near future when they both get out there, I think sometime next week. It is Kerry playing childish little games while in the midst of a presidential campaign. I have no idea what else might happen, if anything, but be on the sharp lookout for that.
All right, two other questions that Senator Kerry challenged President Bush to answer. “Why did you mislead Americans about how you would go to war?” By the way, this business of the timeline, can we also add to these 15 months the ten years of violations of resolution upon resolution passed by the United Nations? So maybe ten years and 15 months led up to finally doing something about Saddam Hussein because the UN wouldn’t. But to call this a rush to war is an absolute joke and everybody knows it, and there was nothing dishonest from the president in the run-up. Now, this question from Kerry: “Why did you mislead Americans about how you would go to war?” The answer, Senator Kerry, is: President Bush didn’t. You, Senator Kerry, misled Americans in how you would go to war. You voted for the war, and then you voted against it and then you voted not to fund it. That’s misleading.
President Bush went to war with one goal and that was to win, which we did. Saddam can tell you about that. Maybe he can write a little poem about how we won the war from his little 12-by-12 jail cell. Maybe he can write it as he’s a witness at his trial for his extensive and abominable crimes against humanity. The other question: “Why didn’t you bring other countries to the table?” Well, Senator Kerry, unless you have in mind a table that we’re all unfamiliar with, President Bush brought more countries to the table and more countries signed on to help than you can shake a stalk of corn at, and he had more allies than FDR had in World War II. We’ve got a list of the countries if you want to see them all squeezed around the table. I could give you websites to tell you how many.
There were about 30 countries that participated in this coalition. I’ll tell you something. Let’s take Kerry at face value on one other thing. Let’s say that Biden and Levin, Joe Biden and Carl Levin, are doing his bidding and that France and Germany will be more willing to provide troops if Kerry’s elected. No, no, just follow me on this. Let’s take it face value. If that’s true, doesn’t that mean that these countries are using this to try to influence our election and that Kerry and his friends are encouraging this? Why aren’t they telling France and Germany to support us now, while we have combat troops on the battlefield? Why are Levin and Biden trying to sabotage our current effort just for the election of the president? If Kerry’s telling us the truth about this, we can come back with our own legitimate questions as to what is their motivation for this.
You remember, uh, ladies and gentlemen, the liberal panic back in 1980 over the October Surprise? That was when George Bush 41 ostensibly was dispatched to Paris aboard an SR-71, which only holds one pilot, to meet with the Iranians to arrange the hostages be kept through the election so as not to help Jimmy Carter <a target=new href=”http://www.americanpresidents.org/ram/amp120399_i.ram”>(Watch the Malaise Speech)</a> in his reelection bid against Ronald Reagan. Then the hostages would be magically released after Reagan was elected, or inaugurated. Well, there was never any evidence of this. Some clown named Gary Sick, a Columbia University professor or something, wrote a book about it. Tom Foley the Speaker of the House said, “Why, this is an incredible charge! The seriousness of the charge mandates that we do an investigation.” So they did an investigation, ten or 12 years, I guess eight years later, eight to ten years later, did an investigation, and of course there was nothing to it.
So now we have, in the New York Times today, John Kerry saying that Carl Levin and Joe Biden have worked out a deal with France and Germany to where if Kerry is elected, France and Germany will send troops to Iraq to help ease our burden. So we had this big deal, this supposed October Surprise back in 1980, and it was a huge hubbub and we had to investigate that because of “the seriousness of the charge.” Now Biden and Levin have a deal with our allies to not help us now. “Don’t help us now! Wait till after our guy wins, and then help us.” Remember how the media went ape over this charge back in 1980, over the October Surprise? Nothing now. Nothing. It’s in the New York Times? “Why, hey, why, good work, Biden! Good work, Carl Levin! Way to go. Way to be out there and working in the best interests of the country,” is the attitude in the New York Times.
<*ICON*>Your Resource for Combating the Partisan Media, Liberals and Bush-Haters…
(…Rush’s John F. Kerry Stack of Stuff packed with quotes, flips & audio!)