Fisking Kerry from Debate. Question 2

Previous Next

Question #2

Jacobs: Iran sponsors terrorism and has missiles capable of hitting Israel and southern Europe. Iran will have nuclear weapons in two to three years time. In the event that U.N. sanctions don't stop this threat, what will you do as president?

KERRY: I don't think you can just rely on U.N. sanctions, Randee. But you're absolutely correct, it is a threat, it's a huge threat. And what's interesting is, it's a threat that has grown while the president has been preoccupied with Iraq, where there wasn't a threat.

Hey Mr Kerry, the question was about Iran. Get it. Iran not Iraq or North Korea. Oh, what the f**k, why don't you start talking about Vietnam.

If he'd let the inspectors do their job and go on, we wouldn't have 10 times the numbers of forces in Iraq that we have in Afghanistan chasing Osama bin Laden.

And in the meantime, Osama has been wreaking havoc all over the world, not! And, as for the Iraq inspectors. The sequence was like this. We told Saddam, co-operate with the inspectors or we attack. Blix went in. He came out, said I didn't find anything. Saddam didn't co-operate (Blix did ask for more time). But Bush said. No co-operations.... cease fire is now officially over. Saddam, you're ass is mine.

Meanwhile, while Iran is moving toward nuclear weapons, some 37 tons of what they called yellow cake, the stuff they use to make enriched uranium, while they're doing that, North Korea has moved from one bomb maybe, maybe, to four to seven bombs.

And you would have done/would do exactly what? Tell us. Please. And, remember the question was on Iran.

For two years, the president didn't even engage with North Korea, did nothing at all, while it was growing more dangerous, despite the warnings of former Secretary of Defense William Perry, who negotiated getting television cameras and inspectors into that reactor.

9/11. Got recall that?

We were safer before President Bush came to office.

Is he blaiming 9/11 on Bush?

Now they have the bombs and we're less safe. So what do we do? We've got to join with the British and the French, with the Germans, who've been involved, in their initiative.

You've lost us in your rambling. Who is "they". Are you talking about North Korea (which has the bombs) or Iran, which doesn't yet? I think you've forgotten what the question was.

We've got to lead the world now to crack down on proliferation as a whole. But the president's been slow to do that, even in Russia. At his pace, it's going to take 13 years to reduce and get ahold of all the loose nuclear material in the former Soviet Union.

Iran. Iran. Iran. The question is about Iran and what you will do. It seems you don't have an answer. Why don't you just say that, and not waste our time.

I've proposed a plan that can capture it and contain it and clean it within four years. And the president is moving to the creation of our own bunker- busting nuclear weapon. It's very hard to get other countries to give up their weapons when you're busy developing a new one.

Like Libya. It was our co-operative efforts in the Middle East that brought him to the table.

I'm going to lead the world in the greatest counterproliferation effort. And if we have to get tough with Iran, believe me, we will get tough.

But since you're not in my secret cadre, I can't tell you the plan. In fact, I'll just talk around the issue.