Kerry supported Bush lies.... Kerry also claimed Saddam had Nukes

[TLM]

“If You Don’t Believe In The U.N. ... Or You Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn’t Vote For Me.” Kerry - Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03





http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-02-11-dems-war-uast_x.htm

Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, helped found Vietnam Veterans Against the War. He said he respects war protesters: "I've been there. I know how tough it is." He also defended voting last year for a resolution authorizing the president to use force against Iraq. "If you don't believe ... Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me," he said.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3080246&p1=0

MR. RUSSERT: What Democrats are saying is that there’s a difference in tone from John Kerry, different emphasis. Back last fall, when the war was popular, he was for it. Now that Howard Dean is surging, he’s a little bit more ambivalent. This is what Ron Brownstein reported you saying in January, telling a questioner, “If you don’t believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn’t vote for me.”

Howard Dean crystalized it. This is what Mr. Dean said way back in February: “What we can’t have is somebody who says to you in Iowa the Iraq war is bad, goes back and votes in favor of the resolution and then comes back and tells you at your county dinners why it’s not a good thing.”

And Deborah Orin in the New York Post cast it this way: “Kerry Follows Dean’s Lead. Call him Copycat Kerry. The best proof of how Howard Dean has spooked the other 2004 Democratic presidential candidates can be found... in the shrill tone of John Kerry’s slashing attack on President Bush, all but painting him as liar-in-chief. ‘President Bush should tell the truth - and get out of the way and let us find the truth - about the intelligence gap,’ fumed Kerry, claiming Bush is stalling probes into 9/11 and fudging the facts on Iraq. ...Kerry sounded as if he was trying to sound just like Dean. In fact, it sounded as if Kerry was kicking himself - hard - for having ever voted for the Iraq war last fall and wishes he had been a naysayer from the start, like Dean.”

SEN. KERRY: I don’t wish I’d been a naysayer from the start. I did the right thing. My vote was a vote for the security of the United States of America based in the information we were given. Tim, for seven and a half years, Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and we found them. We destroyed them. We knew they were there. We also knew there were some there that we hadn’t finished destroying, at which point the inspections stopped. For four years you had no inspections. During that time, we are told by our intelligence community and by the president the following things are happening: he’s reconstituting, he’s building. We were even shown photographs: “Here’s what’s happening in this building, Senator.”

[Hoppin_Mad]

1. Ok - I won't ! -eom-

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. Dean also believed Saddam had WMDs

Dean:"never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction."
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000395.html

[TLM]

4. Can;t defend Kerry claim that Saddam had nukes...

So try hard to claim Dean said something just as bad.

Dean never said Saddam had nukes.


Here's what Dean said:

“Tonight, for better or worse, America is at war. Tonight, every American, regardless of party, devoutly supports the safety and success of our men and women in the field. Those of us who, over the past 6 months, have expressed deep concerns about this President’s management of the crisis, mistreatment of our allies and misconstruction of international law, have never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction.

Those Americans who opposed our going to war with Iraq, who wanted the United Nations to remove those weapons without war, need not apologize for giving voice to their conscience, last year, this year or next year. In a country devoted to the freedom of debate and dissent, it is every citizen’s patriotic duty to speak out, even as we wish our troops well and pray for their safe return. Congressman Abraham Lincoln did this in criticizing the Mexican War of 1846, as did Senator Robert F. Kennedy in calling the war in Vietnam 'unsuitable, immoral and intolerable.'

This is not Iraq, where doubters and dissenters are punished or silenced --this is the United States of America. We need to support our young people as they are sent to war by the President, and I have no doubt that American military power will prevail. But to ensure that our post-war policies are constructive and humane, based on enduring principles of peace and justice, concerned Americans should continue to speak out; and I intend to do so.”

[Feanorcurufinwe]

10. I realize I'm just responding to flamebait but

in fact the statement you keep quoting is not a statement claiming that Saddam had nuclear weapons. It is a statement saying that Saddam, with nuclear weapons, is a threat. Just like I will say right now that Osama with nuclear weapons is a threat. If you don't believe Osama is a threat with nuclear weapons, you should be forced to wear clown shoes and no pants.


Now. Did I "claim Osama has nuclear weapons"? lol

[isbister]

13. I'd be a threat with nuclear weapons...

...'cause I wouldn't know what the heck I was doing... would probably hit the on button or something :-)

[TLM]

22. To see your error, place the quotes side by side....

“If you don’t believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn’t vote for me."


"If you don’t believe 'Osama with nuclear weapons is a threat' then you shouldn’t vote for me"


Notice how you reversed it to say Osama with nukes is a threat, instead of how Kerry said it which was that saddam is a threat with nukes. Kerry did not say Saddam would be a threat IF he got nukes... he said Saddam IS (currently) a threat with nuclear weapons.

That's like saying DK is a progressive with a healthcare plan. That does not mean that if DK develops a healthcare plan he will somehow become a progressive. It is a clear statement about the individual currently being something, and why.

Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

25. Your misquoting of me is pathetic

Here's what I said:

"I will say right now that Osama with nuclear weapons is a threat. If you don't believe Osama is a threat with nuclear weapons, you should be forced to wear clown shoes and no pants."

And this is what you claimed I said:

""If you don't believe 'Osama with nuclear weapons is a threat' then you shouldn't vote for me""



Your blatantly false representation of what I said makes me sick. :puke:

[TLM]

28. I simply placed your phrasing inside the same context as Kerry's statement

It would hardly be an accurate comparison if I had included all the adjunctive statements you made to try and help support your rearranging of the words.


You fliped the senetence around, which only proves my point. Then you avoided the statement about kucinich, which further proves my point.

If I said, "If you don't believe DK is a progressive with a healthcare plan, then you shouldn't vote for me" am I saying DK currently is a progressive that has a heathcare plan right now... or am I saying that if at some point he developed a healthcare plan he'd then become a progressive?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

35. Right. You made up your own words and put them in my mouth.

So much for your credibility.

[TLM]

38. I did not make up anything....

I simply placed your example within the sentence from Kerry.

Did you read the kerry quote? Hard to see how you would think that I made up those words, when they are clearly from Kerry's quote.

[sandnsea]

39. "Iraq does have chemical and biological weapons"

That statement clearly doesn't state that Kerry thought Saddam actually had nukes. Regardless, Dean clearly stated on February 25, 2003, that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and maybe even a nuclear program. And he didn't think it was necessary for us to threaten force to get inspectors back into Iraq. According to what he says now anyway. And this is what you think America will vote for. Or even ought to vote for. Unbelievable.

"FMR. GOV. HOWARD DEAN: Sure. I think there's a high threshold for a unilateral attack, and the United States has traditionally set the moral tone for foreign policy in the world. My view of this is since Iraq is not an imminent danger to the United States, the United States should not unilaterally attack Iraq. Iraq does not have nuclear weapons. They do not have much of a nuclear program, if they have one at all left. And they have not... there is not any particular evidence that is convincing that they have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. All those three things would constitute, in my view, a reason to defend our country by unilaterally attacking. But those are not the cases. Sec. Powell and the president have not made those cases well.

We believe... I believe that Iraq does have chemical and biological weapons, and they are a threat to many nations in the region, but not to the United States."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june03/dean_2-25.html

[shance]

6. I believe it is meant to IMPLY if there are weapons of mass destruction

At that time of course, we still had no evidence of WMD and the Bush Administration made the decision to go in anyway.

[TLM]

14. He said "Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons"

Did did not say if you believe that Saddam would be a threat if he were to eventually somehow obtain nuclear weapons.... Kerry said that Saddam had them, and if you did not believe him, you should not vote for him.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

16. But when you change it to:

"Kerry said that Saddam had them" -- that's when you start making things up. I ask you again, looking at my post above -- did I say Osama had nuclear weapons?

[TLM]

23. DK is a progressive with a health care plan...

Did I just say DK has a health care plan... or that he would somehow become a progressive if he develops a health care plan?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. Your post is incoherent.

[TLM]

30. What is unclear....

If I said, "Kucinich is a progressive with health care plans" would that mean i was making a statement that Kucinich was currently a progressive who had health care plans right now... or would i be saying that at some indeterminate point if Kucinich develops health care plans, he would then become a progressive?

Seems a simple enough question.


I think you just do not like the answer.

[revcarol]

3. Gee, it seems as if only Kucinich

had "THE EYES THAT SEE THROUGH THE LIES."

[IndianaGreen]

5. All of the strife in DU about which candidate said what and when

has reinforced the view that the only straight shooter, and the only real liberal of the bunch, is Dennis Kucinich.

We are doing ourselves a disservice when we fall for the media's lie that Dennis is unelectable. We are the ones that determine electability! If we went along with what we feel to be right, we should be voting for Dennis.

Why do we often hold our noses when we vote on Election Day? Perhaps it is because we don't vote for the best liberal candidates in the primaries...

[sandnsea]

19. Kucinich supported inspections, Saddam was dangerous

There isn't a person in Congress, a leader in the world, an expert on WMD, that didn't think there was cause to be concerned about Saddam and nuclear and bio/chem weapons. Not one anywhere. Even Kucinch said there had to be tough inspections in Iraq and tough restrictions on the ability for Saddam to get weapons in the future. Now why would Dennis say that if Saddam was Mary Poppins?

NOBODY saw though any lies. NOBODY. The only people who think they did aren't experts at all and probably never read a single intelligence report anyway. And quoting the Guardian or even Will Pitt or any other news outlet IS NOT reading the actual reports and testimony either. There was plenty of information in them over the years to cause any reasonable person to be concerned. Just like Dennis was.

[IndianaGreen]

43. Kucinich supported the UN

The four pro-IWR candidates supported Bush.

President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution



President George W. Bush along with bipartisan leaders from the House and Senate announced the Joint Resolution to authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces against Iraq. "The statement of support from the Congress will show to friend and enemy alike the resolve of the United States," President Bush said during the announcement in the Rose Garden, Wednesday, October 2, 2002. White House photo by Paul Morse.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-7.html

[kerrygoddess]

7. Looks like Dean needs to call his lawyer

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3927029/

[Hoppin_Mad]

12. You need to follow the threads

There is already a separate thread on that article.

[TLM]

24. Can;t defend Kerry saying Saddam had nukes...

so try to change the subject to Dean.

[quaker bill]

44. Kerry in 1999 sounds just like Kerry in 2003

HEARING OF THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE;
10:37 A.M. EDT TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1999_h/990928-iraq-sfrc.htm

SEN. KERRY:

It seems to me that a Saddam Hussein who has the ability to develop potentially more threatening weapons of mass destruction -- and notwithstanding -- I mean, it was the show of force and the determination of the United States that really took away from him that option, previously. If the determination is not there, then the use that he put it to previously, in other circumstances, could become far more attractive again in the future, which I think is the bottom line of what you are saying.

So I think we're -- and I thank the chair for having this hearing. I mean, I think we're talking about a very significant, large strategic interest of the United States that for various reasons has been second-tiered to sometimes more emotional and certainly of-the-moment perceptions of other issues that don't rise to the same strategic, longer-term interests of our country. So I think it's important for us to be thinking about where we go, because I've said, and I think you and others have said, there's an ultimate time -- as long as he's there, and it may well be that the Iraqi people will settle that. But as long as he is there, I think most people understand that that threat remains and it's real. So -- and there's a time of confrontation. So I think we're better to do it sooner rather than later and to be real about our resolve.

<<>>

The point being that Kerry has been quite consistent. He has been calling for a policy like IWR for years.

The interesting bit comes when GW Bush actually took the policy and became "real about our resolve". Dean at about the same time opens fire on his candidacy from the left flank by getting "real about his resolve" to oppose war, and thus connects with a large pool of support.

Caught in the crossfire, the parsing begins. It becomes time to break out the maple syrup. Kerry cannot disavow the IWR vote, because that would be admitting a mistake and give Dean more ammo. However, I believe he did not intend and does not support the way Bush implemented the policy. I see his dilemma.

Where I run into a problem with his vote on IWR is Kerry's apparent failure to understand that Bush* was never going to implement this policy in any other way.

You know, given a sane and reasonable President, support of IWR might have been the right vote. A President like Jimmy Carter would have used this authority to 'rattle the sabre' in a way that got us into Iraq peacefully for a truly aggressive round of inspections that would have resolved the issue.

Apparently, the result would have been the same, we would have found no WMD or programs to build them. At that point, we could have brought the troops home with far fewer dead and injured Americans and Iraqis.

There was no set of circumstances under which Bush* was ever going to act this way. Kerry should have known this, there was ample evidence to predict this outcome. It was this failure to understand the intent of the Bush* administration when so many others did that caused me to seek another candidate.

[isbister]

8. I think Saddam would be a threat...

...if he had nuclear weapons. Dictators are not trustworthy people.

[TLM]

18. Kerry did not say WOULD be a threat...

Kerry said “If you don’t believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn’t vote for me.”

[Feanorcurufinwe]

20. And he also didn't claim Saddam had nukes.

I say again, Osama, with nuclear weapons is a threat. If you don't believe Osama is a threat with nuclear weapons, you might want to think about taking a course in risk assessment.


Did I claim Osama has nuclear weapons?

[TLM]

26. Yeah he did, and the fact you had to rearrange words to support

your argument proves it. Here are the two statements, yours and Kerry's.


“If you don’t believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn’t vote for me."


"If you don’t believe 'Osama with nuclear weapons is a threat' then you shouldn’t vote for me"


Notice how you reversed it to say Osama with nukes is a threat, instead of how Kerry said it which was that saddam is a threat with nukes. Kerry did not say Saddam would be a threat IF he got nukes... he said Saddam IS (currently) a threat with nuclear weapons.

That's like saying DK is a progressive with a healthcare plan. That does not mean that if DK develops a healthcare plan at some point he will then become a progressive. It is a clear statement about the individual currently being something, and why.

Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons...

[isbister]

32. For the sake of argument...

Kerry's statement is as you say

When did you know 100% for sure Sadddam did not have nukes? (you can answer the same on chemical and biological if you want) Be honest, 100%.

Now, let me complicate your decision. Let me have the bush team cook up some intelligence, pull you into a room and have intelligence service personnel one by one and show you the secret stuff.

Could you still say 100% that Saddam was nuke, or WMD free?

Should you want inspectors to check?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

33. The fact that you aren't accurately quoting me as anyone can see

by looking at my post #10 -- kinda makes your argument look pretty weak doesn't it? lol

[TLM]

37. I simply placed your phrasing inside the same context as Kerry's statement

It would hardly be an accurate comparison if I had included all the adjunctive statements you made to try and help support your rearranging of the words.


You fliped the senetence around, which only proves my point. Then you avoided the statement about kucinich, which further proves my point.

If I said, "If you don't believe DK is a progressive with a healthcare plan, then you shouldn't vote for me" am I saying DK currently is a progressive that has a heathcare plan right now... or am I saying that if at some point he developed a healthcare plan he'd then become a progressive?

[isbister]

21. Re: Kerry did not say WOULD be a threat...

Right... If I was writing this on January 31, 2003 I might use different words but, I think the chances of Sadddam getting his hands on a nuke is pretty slim now.

[TLM]

29. Kerry said he HAD them....

Saddam is a threat with nukes....


Kucinich is a progressive with healthcare plans....


Both are statements made in present tense, a statement of what is currently true, not a statement of what might develop at some point.

[isbister]

36. You were replying to a particular statement where I..

expressed my own opinion

[kerrygoddess]

9. I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity

STEPHANOPOULOS: And Senator Kerry, the first question goes to you. On March 19th, President Bush ordered General Tommy Franks to execute the invasion of Iraq. Was that the right decision at the right time?

SENATOR JOHN KERRY (D-MA): George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.

So, the answer was no it wasn't the right decision at the right time:

I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity

and then the Senator went on to say "it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein"

and when the president made the decision, I supported him

and then repeated the approval of disarming Saddam:

I support the fact that we did disarm him

So, he didn't say he supported the invasion and that Bush made the right decision and he supported him as you stated, he said he didn't think it was the right decision at the right time, that once bush made the decision to invade, he (Kerry) supported the president (I believe he also made a statement of support for the troops at the time the war began) and Kerry said he supported the fact that we did disarm Saddam.

[TLM]

17. "Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons"

In true form Kerry can never give a direct straight answer to any question... he has to attempt to create worming room by changing the terminology. He was asked about the invasion... and while he tried to dance around it, he admitted that he supported Bush's decision to disarm saddam. Bush's decision to disarm saddam was a decision to go to war and invade Iraq. Kerry said he would have liked more time BUT he supported it and thought it was the right thing to do.


STEPHANOPOULOS: And Senator Kerry, the first question goes to you. On March 19th, President Bush ordered General Tommy Franks to execute the invasion of Iraq. Was that the right decision at the right time?

SENATOR JOHN KERRY (D-MA): George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.

[isbister]

11. Kerry: January 23, 2003

"Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses.

He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.

That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.

So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament. And that made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the perils of war for themselves rather than keeping the focus on the perils posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal. Indeed, for a time, the Administration's unilateralism, in effect, elevated Saddam in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he never would have achieved on his own, undermining America's standing with most of the coalition partners which had joined us in repelling the invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war.

As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war."

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

[TLM]

31. How does this change what he said about Saddam having nukes?

We know that Kerry flip flops and talks out both sides of his mouth all the time to try and play both sides of a given issues.

So having two quotes from him at two times saying different things is to be expected.

However that does not change what he said about Saddam having nukes.

[isbister]

40. Re: flip flops

Lying doesn't make your argument stronger.

Kerry has been very consistent. If you think you've got some sort of gotcha, then take the time and read what he has said... maybe you'll find more. Or maybe you won't I'm not making his being consistent up, don't believe me, you can check for yourself... no flipping, no flopping... the tv talking heads (and whomever you're getting this from) have mislead you.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_0908.html
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0710.html

[sandnsea]

15. It wasn't political expedience

We've said this a cazillion times. There was intelligence that indicated there was a cause for concern. Everybody said so, including Howard and Dennis. That's why Kerry voted to authorize he threat of force, that was the only way to get inspectors back into Iraq. What's new here. Kerry's being consistent again.

Bush did what Bush did. Whatever his agenda was, whatever lies he told to advance that agenda; it doesn't change the facts that Congress had for years and years and years and years. There was a cause for CONCERN and inspectors needed to go back into Iraq. Kerry did the exact right thing and he did it because he believed it was right. That's why I support him for the Presidency.

[TLM]

34. He still said Saddam was a threat WITH nuclear weapons...

Not even bush went that far. Bush only said that Saddam was trying to buy the components for nukes.

[Gore1FL]

41. Lets look at the quopte again shall we....

therticle shows the quote as "If you don't believe ... Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me,"

Now, i seriously doubt Kerry pronounced the three periods in the quote, so I assume the writer of the article left something out. Immediately, that is a red flag.

I did a search using the phrase "Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons" "vote for me" in google.

I came up with several referenced to the quote -- they were all the same copy of a MTP transcript. One was a cached page fromt he RNC site. (Another Red flag in my book)

Searching through these transcripts I found the quote referenced was not something Kerry said on MTP, but a quote Russert asked him about. The quote actually came from an article written by Ron Brownstein.

I did not see a link for him in my current google search, so I entered the search Brownstein Kerry. Pretty much that landed me at the LA times where Browenstein has a weekly column. Unfortunately, the available article do not go back far enough to get the context.

It seems a little silly to take a partial quote to lambast someone with. As the quote is not longer accessible to verify, and the number of red flags identified, this is really a non-starter.

[w13rd0]

42. I'm sure someone has access to Lexis-Nexus and will take a closer look...

...open source archivists have been hard at work. But it's time to start putting these concepts to the test.

What is the full context of the quote Timmy "I'm a friend of Cheney" cited from this Ron Brownstein article?

The last part is interesting:

<quote>
Al From of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council says that kind of talk is what the party needs to earn credibility with wary voters. When people choose a president, he says, "the highest value they have is toughness. They want strength."

From, whose group has worked with Bill Clinton, Al Gore and other prominent Democrats, says presidential hopefuls should not worry about skeptical primary voters. If a war starts, he says, most Democrats will support it — and candidates who backed it will be able to neutralize doubts about Democrats and defense just as Clinton and Gore did in 1992 after the last Persian Gulf War. "We did not run anti-war candidates in 1992," From says. "Had we done that, we would have lost."
</quote>

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-02-11-dems-war-uast_x.htm

Indeed, context CAN be fascinating. More so than just reading the quote, I'd like to see it. I'd like to see what (...) is replacing.