Kerry flip flops on the war....AGAIN

[JoeThaNo1Stunna]

This is just getting ridiculous, I mean absolutely ridiculous.

He voted to authorize the war, voted against funding for our troops, then said know everything he knows today he would still vote for the war... Today on Imus he said...

Kerry also told Imus that the book attacking his record in Vietnam, "Unfit For Command," is "a pack of lies." When asked whether there are any circumstances that the United States should have gone to war in Iraq, Kerry responded, "Not under the current circumstances, no. There are none that I see."

Well a few weeks ago you said we should have, now we shouldn't have. What in the hell do you believe Mr. Kerry?

Not trying to be funny here, but it honestly gives me a headache trying to distinguish his position on the issue.

 

[Geoff_M]

I also loved his "answer" about what he'd do about Iraq. It was basically "I'd call the International community together (read: France and Germany) and talk to them and get their support to help rebuild Iraq, because I'd be a new guy and they don't like Bush." When Imus pressed for some more details, Kerry said (only loosely paraphrased) "Well, I'd have to see what the situation is like on Day 1 and go from there.... a lot can happen between then and now. I mean there's no telling how much more damage Bush can do between now and January!" Wow, now there's a visionary!

Here's the exchange:

IMUS: What is this plan you have?

KERRY: Well, the plan gets more complicated every single day because the president...

IMUS: Try to simplify it for me so I can understand it.

KERRY: I'm going to just tell you why.

IMUS: OK.

KERRY: Because about -- I can't remember whether it's -- several months ago, I said, "This may the president's last chance to get it right in Iraq." That's what I said. And I said, as Joe Biden did and others did, "Mr. President, you've got to lead. You've got to get the international community at the table." The president has never done that. Now it's obviously, with the situation on the ground, much more complicated; I have to acknowledge that. It is more complicated. But I would immediately call a summit meeting of the European community. They haven't lived up to the obligations of their own resolution that they passed at the U.N. It is important to do much more rapid training. Senator Biden came back from over there, other experts have observed they're not doing the training that's necessary, at a pace that's necessary, in a way that's necessary to establish the security. And it is going to be critical to accelerate that kind of training.

But look, I have to look and see what I have on January 20. At the rate the president's going, nobody can predict what will happen on January 20. I'll tell you this: A new president, with new credibility, with a fresh start, who listens to the military leaders, doesn't fire them, like General Shinseki, when they give him advice they don't like, a new president who has credibility with the foreign leaders, will have the opportunity to isolate the extremists and to bring people to the table in different ways: for border security, for training, and to do the things necessary to provide stability. I'm committed to providing that stability, but I'll tell you, this president is making it tougher every single day by just not understanding and not being honest about what's going on.

IMUS: But it sounds -- that may or may not be a good plan, but meanwhile, we had three soldiers dead in Iraq yesterday and how many die before -- wind up over there in the rehab room at Walter Reed before a plan like this kicks into effect? Also, I was talking to...

KERRY: Well, Don, I realize that, but the fact is that the president is the president. I mean, what you ought to be doing and what everybody in America ought to be doing today is not asking me; they ought to be asking the president, What is your plan? What's your plan, Mr. President, to stop these kids from being killed? What's your plan, Mr. President, to get the other countries in there? What's your plan to have 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the cost being carried by America? I mean, he is the president today, and we have given him advice from day one; from day one, from the floor of the Senate when we debated it where I said don't -- you know, you've got to have other countries with you, don't make an end runaround the U.N., the difficulty is not winning the military, it's winning the peace; and he ignored it. And others -- the bipartisan, Dick Lugar, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Joe Biden, and the Foreign Relations Committee gave him advice that he chose to ignore. And since then, many times we've stood up and said, "Mr. President, this is what you have to do." He's chosen not to do those things.

IMUS: We're asking you because you want to be president.

KERRY: That's correct. But I can't...

IMUS: He's not going to answer any questions.

KERRY: I can't tell you what I'm going to find on the ground on January 20th.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6009011/

 

[MikeB63]

Sounds like a guy with an idea and no plan. What a surprise.

 

[Disney Enthusiast]

But he is a very thoughtful person and must rethink the issue and change his stance again and again because that is what intelligent people do. Now those who say what they mean and do as they say....... are the scary ones...... at least according to the Kerry supporters.

 

[Geoff_M]

But he is a very thoughtful person...

I believe the term is "nuanced".

It reminds me of Paul Reiser's line from the movie Diner

Modell : You know what word I'm not comfortable with? Nuance. It's not a real word. Like gesture. Gesture's a real word. With gesture you know where you stand. But nuance? I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Disney Enthusiast]

Originally posted by Geoff_M
I believe the term is "nuanced".

It reminds me of Paul Reiser's line from the movie Diner

 

[GeorgeG]

From the very beginning Bush made it clear to the world that "your either with us or your against us." That should have been clear to anybody. The UN... sorry, I'm getting too angry to finish this...

 

[Bobbles]

Blah blah blah



I'm glad President Bush has held up his promise to keep the assault weapons ban on. Oh wait! Let's blame that on Congress.

 

[poohandwendy]

Sounds to me like he is just setting up an excuse for not being effective in the war against terrorism (if he becomes president)...''Don't look at me... GWB made it too difficult to fix.''

 

[Mamu]

A sad day for anyone who is a democrat, and cares about this party.

Time to flush all these democratic strategist running this campaign down the drain. I have yet to hear 1 solid reason why John Kerry should be President.

What a thought, this group of democrats running our country. I've seen and heard enough.

 

[JPN4265]

Originally posted by Bobbles
Blah blah blah



I'm glad President Bush has held up his promise to keep the assault weapons ban on. Oh wait! Let's blame that on Congress.

Sounds like a good idea. Anyone in Congress (including John Kerry) could have ask for the assault weapons ban to stay in place. Wait, let me think, John Kerry doesn't do the Senator thing anymore. He's to busy. Maybe he should have step down for the good of his State. But then that would be the right thing to do.

 

[Geoff_M]

I'm glad President Bush has held up his promise to keep the assault weapons ban on. Oh wait! Let's blame that on Congress.

He said he'd sign it if Congress approved it. They didn't, so I'm not sure what the rap against Bush is on this one.

On a side note, the AWB was all window dressing and very little subtance. It was "feel good" legislation at its worst. (For the record, I don't own any guns.) The rifle the DC sniper used wasn't covered by it, and it didn't help the kids at Columbine. I predict a couple of years from now the press will be scratching its head and wondering were that increase in violent crime went to that was predicted back in 2004 by the ant-gun lobby and the police... just like has happened in every state that's loosened its "carry" laws in recent years. There were cries that "wild west" shoot-outs and chaos would result by the changes. So far that's not happened in one case.

Wait, let me think, John Kerry doesn't do the Senator thing anymore.

Nah, he was busy smiling and brandishing that new "assault weapon" (as defined by him) that he was given at that rally last week and joking about taking it to the debates with Bush.

 

[JKanownik]

Originally posted by Geoff_M
... just like has happened in every state that's loosened its "carry" laws in recent years. There were cries that "wild west" shoot-outs and chaos would result by the changes. So far that's not happened in one case.

For the record, the jury is still out on this one. All of the studies showing reduced crime rates due to relaxed gun laws were done with funding from pro-gun groups. There are contradictory studies that have been done that show no impact on crime rates. I don't think anyone was claiming shoot-outs and chaos, but an increase in guns on the street with no positive factor to outweigh the possible risks involved is cause for concern.

It's a shame that biased data has been used as fact to justify relaxing gun laws across the country. While I am against relaxing gun laws, I am open to doing so if there is scientifically acceptable proof that it has a positive impact.

It's also important to note that the 2nd Amendment does not specifically guarantee individuals the right to bear arms. It states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Supreme Court has actually ruled the right to bear arms only exists in reference to a Militia. In United States v. Miller (1939), the court stated that:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Further Supreme Court cases have gone against Congressional regulations of firearms, but on the basis that the federal government didn'thave legislative authority, not on 2nd Amendment grounds.

-Josh

 

[shortbun]

Originally posted by JPN4265
Sounds like a good idea. Anyone in Congress (including John Kerry) could have ask for the assault weapons ban to stay in place. Wait, let me think, John Kerry doesn't do the Senator thing anymore. He's to busy. Maybe he should have step down for the good of his State. But then that would be the right thing to do.

And you think W is busy doing his job instead of campaigning?
Let's ask W to step down, eh?
Very silly premise. Anyone running for president, including the
incumbent in campaigning loads more that working. Worry about
something else, eh? Like where we are going to get all the money W is spending on his "programs/wars" without raising
taxes. If he is re-elected, he's going to have to deal with that.
Wake up.

 

[arminnie]

Those of us that are old enough to remember the Viet Nam war know was a mess it was - not because we did not have some good soldiers out there but for many reasons including the fact that their hands were tied by politicians in Washington. There was no firm resolve either to win it or to pull out- it was sort of one step forward, two back, two forward, one back, etc.

That is my biggest fear if Kerry were somehow to get elected. He would remove the firm resolve that is currently there, but he would not pull us out. That in my opinion would be the worst case scenario - to stay there but not with any real commitment. Now that could be Viet Nam all over again.

 

[JKanownik]

Originally posted by JoeThaNo1Stunna
This is just getting ridiculous, I mean absolutely ridiculous.

He voted to authorize the war, voted against funding for our troops, then said know everything he knows today he would still vote for the war... Today on Imus he said...

Kerry also told Imus that the book attacking his record in Vietnam, "Unfit For Command," is "a pack of lies." When asked whether there are any circumstances that the United States should have gone to war in Iraq, Kerry responded, "Not under the current circumstances, no. There are none that I see."

Well a few weeks ago you said we should have, now we shouldn't have. What in the hell do you believe Mr. Kerry?

Not trying to be funny here, but it honestly gives me a headache trying to distinguish his position on the issue.

While you can fault Kerry for not taking a decisive stance on this issue or for his lack of complete explanation on his nuanced views, his statements are not in themselves contradictory.

He voted to give the president the authority to declare war. He did not vote for an actual war declaration. It would be nice if he would adequately explain his reason for giving the President the authority (there are justifiable reasons for this), but being against the "way we went to war" does not contradict standing behind his previous vote.

And he voted for $87 billion paid for by taxes and against $87 billion paid for by deficit spending. There is a difference there.

If you're getting a headache from trying to distinguish his view of the issue I would suggest you stop watching the Fox News Channel or listening to or reading other biased commentary. There are thousands of resources of facts on the internet that you can read for yourself. You can find the wording of the bills in question. You can find John Kerry's actual quotes. In these facts you will find statements that show a reluctance to form complete and definitive opinion on Iraq, but you will not find any directly contradictory statements.

While Kerry's stance is far from perfect, many people prefer it to the grossly over-simplified view of "you're either with us or you're against us." That "with us or against us" statement and the request for blind faith that goes along with it seem more like a statement coming from a dictator than a president.

-Josh

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by JKanownik
While you can fault Kerry for not taking a decisive stance on this issue or for his lack of complete explanation on his nuanced views, his statements are not in themselves contradictory.

He voted to give the president the authority to declare war. He did not vote for an actual war declaration. It would be nice if he would adequately explain his reason for giving the President the authority (there are justifiable reasons for this), but being against the "way we went to war" does not contradict standing behind his previous vote.

And he voted for $87 billion paid for by taxes and against $87 billion paid for by deficit spending. There is a difference there.

If you're getting a headache from trying to distinguish his view of the issue I would suggest you stop watching the Fox News Channel or listening to or reading other biased commentary. There are thousands of resources of facts on the internet that you can read for yourself. You can find the wording of the bills in question. You can find John Kerry's actual quotes. In these facts you will find statements that show a reluctance to form complete and definitive opinion on Iraq, but you will not find any directly contradictory statements.

While Kerry's stance is far from perfect, many people prefer it to the grossly over-simplified view of "you're either with us or you're against us." That "with us or against us" statement and the request for blind faith that goes along with it seem more like a statement coming from a dictator than a president.

-Josh

Did you read or listen to the interview? When asked what his Iraq plan is, he said "you should be asking Bush"

and this man wants to be President.

Did anyone also catch that he's consulting with Albright? (I loved how Imus said "that's a mistake. Do we really want Albright back? The person that was instrumental in given nuclear technology to North Korea? Good idea there, Kerry!

 

[LoraJ]

"Let me be clear: I am voting to give this authority to the President for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction <b>if we cannot accomplish that objective through new tough weapons inspections. </b>In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days - to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate inspections requirements and to <b>act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force." </b>

John Kerry Oct. 9th, 2002

 

[JoeThaNo1Stunna]

Originally posted by LoraJ
"Let me be clear: I am voting to give this authority to the President for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction <b>if we cannot accomplish that objective through new tough weapons inspections. </b>In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days - to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate inspections requirements and to <b>act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force." </b>

John Kerry Oct. 9th, 2002

How else to disarm Iraq of WMDs than what we did, obviously the efforts of the previous 12 years were a failure. And we acted with our allies to disarm Saddam. If Kerry did not want to go to war he should not have voted to go to war, it's as simple as that. Let's not get into ridiculous hairsplitting that voting to authorize war is not the same as voting for war. Then if what he said yesterday was true, then why did say the exact opposite a few weeks ago when he said knowing everything he knows now he would still vote the same way. I am not saying this to bash Kerry, but the thought of him being in control of this situation scares me. I have no idea what he would do, and I don't think he does either.

 

[LoraJ]

What WMD?