I'm sure Jon Stewart wouldn't characterize this a s a flip, or a flop, but really, hasn't Kerry had about 5 different positions on the iRaq war? if the polls change again, will his position? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...sep23,1,850637.story?coll=chi-newsopinion-hed -- After his 2002 Senate vote to authorize the war, Kerry often characterized disarming Hussein as "the right decision." In May 2003, Kerry said on ABC that while he "would have preferred" more diplomacy before going to war, "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." As recently as last month, Kerry was sticking by that principle, stating that even if he had known the U.S. wouldn't find unconventional weapons in Iraq or prove close ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, he still would have voted to authorize the war. But succeeding weeks have confronted Kerry with two harsh realities: His presidential candidacy has ebbed in public opinion polls, and Iraq has grown bloodier. So it was bizarre, although not exactly shocking, to hear Kerry veer left during a speech on Monday: "We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure ..." he said. "Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions, and if we do not change course, there is a prospect of a war with no end in sight." Kerry, who knows a few things about changing course, evidently believes he and his Senate colleagues were right to give President Bush the authority to wage war, but that Bush was wrong to use the authority.
1. This is an important and will be a close presidential election, for some reason you think its odd for the challenger to try to appeal to public opinion, specifically challenging a failure of his challenger? Do you understand how politics works? 2. I believe changing your mind on a position is a valid act if the facts behind the matter change and the promises are broken or unfulfilled. Do you criticize all those atkins dieters for eating carbs in the past? Are all those war-mother flip-flops for changing their minds when their kids die? If you buy a tv from wal-mart and it's broken, are you not allowed to return it? Is it wrong for a voter who voted for gore in 2000 to vote for bush in 2004? 3. Sadly, i think the painting of Kerry as a flip-flopper is going to work. In 2000, Bush painted Gore as a person who would do anything to get people to vote for him, while Gore painted Bush as someone who was below average intelligence. It didn't work on the majority, but it worked enough in the places that mattered.
do you critisize W for adopting a nation-building strategy for failed states like afghanistan and iRaq in the wake of 9/11?
Given what we now know about how bad the Iraq situation is, I'd bet millions of Americans have reconsidered their views on this optional war. What may be more telling, however, are the millions of Americans who have not reconsidered their views on this optional war.
and kerry's change of position is not in response to any new facts about iRaq. Rather, it's in response to new dynamics in the polls. it's the ultimate example of poiitical opportunism. the man has no core.
Exactly. BTW, it has NOT been a "change in course" for Kerry, he has been saying EXACTLY the same thing since at least February, which was the first time I heard him say it. Kerry believes that Bush should have had the authority to go to war, but also believes that we should have pursued diplomatic options, bringing the UN on board, and developing a true worldwide coalition like the one Bush's father created in '91. We ignored Saddam's offer to put CIA and FBI agents in Iraq to confirm what the weapons inspectors ended up reporting, namely that Iraq had disarmed. We did not explore all of our diplomatic options. We spurned the UN when it became clear that they simply did not believe all of our "intelligence" regarding WMDs. It turns out that they were right to be skeptical and once again illustrates the problem that Kerry has with the way the war was waged. We bribed and coerced a very small number of nations to join the effort in Iraq rather than taking the time and putting in the kind of time and effort necessary to create a truly legitimate worldwide coalition like GHWB did in '91. All of the things Kerry is saying are 100% accurate and he has been consistent on these points since day 1. Kerry wanted Bush to have the authority to use force behind him so that Saddam would know that any further obstruction would be dealt with harshly. Saddam responded by telling us that we could bring in the FBI and CIA to verify the findings of the weapons inspectors who were about to finish their work in Iraq. Bush and Co. IGNORED the diplomatic options, spurned the UN, and created a "coalition" that ensured that the US would take on 95% or more of the costs, human and monetary, for this action. Kerry has been 100% consistent on this from the beginning of his campaign.
WE ARE NOT BUILDING A NEW NATION IN AFGHANISTAN!!! We left and took our reconstruction money with us. We removed so many of our troops that the Taliban is now in control of the majority of Afghanistan outside of Kabul. We SHOULD have been nation building in Afghanistan, not starting an unnecessary war with a country that had NOTHING to do with Al Qaeda or 9/11. I wouldn't criticize Bush for changing his position regarding nation building if he actually rebuilt the nation that was harboring the terrorists who perpetrated 9/11. I do criticize him for sidetracking that effort by waging an unnecessary war in Iraq.
I don't understand how this is a flip-flop. He thought Saddam was bad, he thought he should be armed, and he thought the President should have that power at his fingertips in the case that it was absolutely necessary. Having seen the aftermath, it clearly wasn't absolutely necessary. I started a thread yesterday to try and figure some of this out - that is, where people actually stand and why Kerry is considered a flip-flop, or, for that matter, what GWB's actuals plans are...
I can't answer yes or no to that question because 1. he didn't adopt a nation-building strategy, and if he tried he's failing 2. and even if you can argue that he did, can you prove that it was a priority and the sole reason for doing both? I wouldn't criticize if he tried to adopt a strategy. It's the lack of a strategy that has led to constant failures that irks me.
less than a month ago, Kerry said, even knowing there were WMD, that he would've gone ahead and invaded. how's that exactly the same thing?
Can you back this up? are you insinuating that the facts behind Iraq have not change before the invasion? Likewise can you prove that the moderate moves Bush has made (middle class tax cuts for example) is not political opportunism? Can you cite a presidential campaign that didn't resort to political opportunism before an election?
the (latest) change in kerry's position has come in the last month. has the situation in iRaq changed so markedly since mid-august thta it would suggest a complete about face on one's opinion of the war?
"i would've invaded anyway" "We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure ..."
No, you need to reread the quote. Kerry said that knowing what we know now, he still would have voted to authorize GWB to use force IF NECESSARY. It was not necessary.
You need to check your quote. I have never heard Kerry say HE would have invaded (and I, for one, have been listening to Kerry, not to the RNC distortions), just that he would have authorized the use of force. BIG difference.
Where are those quotes from? When are they from? What was the context? What was the question asked? What was the rest of the speech around it? As an example, this is what the George Bush official website thinks constitutes flip-flopping. John Kerry's Eight Position on the $87 Billion 1. Kerry Said It Would Be "Irresponsible" To Vote Against Funding Troops. "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible." (CBS' "Face The Nation," 9/14/03) 2. Kerry And Edwards Voted Against The $87 Billion Supplemental Supporting Our Troops. 3. Kerry Claims "I Actually Did Vote For The $87 Billion Before I Voted Against It." (Sen. John Kerry, Speech In Huntington, WV, 3/16/04) 4. Kerry Later Said He Was "Proud" That He And Edwards Voted Against $87 Billion In Funding For U.S. Soldiers. "Here is the value that John Edwards and I will put in place. I'm proud to say that John joined me in voting against that $87 billion when we knew the policy had to be changed." (John Kerry, Remarks at "Women's Voices: A Luncheon with John Kerry," Boston, MA, 7/12/04) 5. Kerry Then Said His Vote Against Body Armor And Supplies For Troops Was "Complicated." (MSNBC's "Imus in the Morning," 7/15/04) 6. Kerry Even Said His Vote For The War And Against Funding For Our Troops Was "Not A Flip-Flop."(CBS' "Evening News," 7/21/04) 7. Kerry Then Said It Was "Irresponsible" To Vote For The Funding For The Troops. "'This president rushed to war without a plan to win the peace,' Kerry said loudly. 'And I believe that because he didn't have a plan to win the peace, it was irresponsible to give him a blank check that gave $20 billion that was going to go . . . to Halliburton and all these other companies, that we needed accountability for this president.'" (Mike Allen And Lois Romano, "Closing Laps In Race To November," The Washington Post, 9/4/04) 8. Kerry Says He's "Glad" He Voted Against The Funding. KERRY: "Because I saw what was happening. I voted against it -- absolutely voted against it. I'm glad I voted against it. Because we now see that that $20 billion hasn't even been spent effectively. Most of it's going to Halliburton in fraud and no-bid contracts which is completely inappropriate. I'd fire Halliburton tomorrow." (CBS' "The Late Show With David Letterman," 9/20/04) I'm sorry if I'm too stupid to understand how any of that constitutes flip-flopping, much less "positions." It's almost as good as the attack ads - "ribbons, medals, ribbons, medals, against, for, against, wind, for, blows"
im sorry, my question wasn't clear enough for you. can you prove that Kerry's changed, or re-clarified, opinions (all of them) are not a result of the changed situation in Iraq? I think its obvious that our reasons for going into Iraq are changing every few months, is there anything wrong with that? If he has been changing his opinions often, how does the recent change justify calling it an "about-face"? You don't think that being on the brink of a civil war, which was not the case last month, indicative of a change? Then again, it might not be a question of change, but a question of getting worse.
