Chicago Trib: Kerry Channelling Dean

Wait, here's more - and since this is the official Bush website, I imiagine these really are the "Mother of All Flip-Flops" as the article suggests

"During the primaries, John Kerry said that anyone who didn't think the world was safer without Saddam Hussein doesn't have the judgment to be president. Now he is saying the removal of Saddam Hussein from power has made us less safe. John Kerry's contradictions on Iraq have led him to the mother of all flip-flops."

- Steve Schmidt, Bush-Cheney '04 Spokesman

Kerry Said Those Who Think The Removal Of Saddam Hussein Has Made Us Less Secure "Don't Have The Judgment To Be President"

During The Primaries, Kerry Questioned The Judgment Of Those Claiming Saddam's Capture Doesn't Help American Security. "Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president." (Anne Q. Hoy, "Dean Faces More Criticism," [New York] Newsday, 12/17/03)

Kerry Now Says The Removal Of Saddam Hussein Has Made Us "Less Secure"

Kerry Said That The Removal Of Saddam Hussein Has Left America "Less Secure." KERRY: "Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, that was not in and of itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction – The satisfaction that we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At New York University, New York, NY, 9/20/04)

Kerry Said The Removal Of Saddam Hussein Has Weakened Our National Security. KERRY: "Let me put it plainly: The President's policy in Iraq has not strengthened our national security. It has weakened it." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At New York University, New York, NY, 9/20/04)

Is it possible that GWB is smarter than me and this really is a flip-flop, or, is it more likely just as it reads.

Saddam sucked and of course given a world with him or against him, we are better off without him - I agree with that. But is America less secure now than we were before...well, I agree with that too, so I must be a flip-flopper.

 

You would think if that were the case, Kerry would be way ahead in the polls.

What do you mean? Just come out and say it.

 

Did anything but the accuracy of hindsight tell you and Kerry that?

 

Does it matter?

 

Entirely. Why would you ask?

 

Because hindsight is always 20/20. John Kerry wasn't President when the decision to go to war was made. He has the benefit of hindsight. If you want to look at what he would have done had he been presented, it is probably impossible to get rid of the post-"Mission Accomplished" knowledge he currently has.

Further, given that hindsight is always 20/20, I'm slightly more comfortable with a commander-in-chief who has learned from someone else's mistakes - GWB doesn't even seem capable of using hindsight to shape future policy - just my opinion, though.

 

Kerry has been very clear on what he would have done differently to assure that an invasion WAS necessary BEFORE we actually invaded. Bush did not take those steps, he instead rushed to war while ignoring the diplomatic options and spurning our allies.

There was PLENTY of evidence beforehand that showed that this war was not necessary, but GWB ignored that evidence in favor of "intelligence" provided to us by an agent of a hostile government.

GWB is the one who kicked the weapons inspectors out of Iraq, not Saddam.

GWB is the one who used cooked "intelligence" to justify his case for war.

GWB is the one who decided to allow Afghanistan to devolve to the point that the Taliban could take over again by removing the bulk of our troops.

GWB is the one at fault here. Kerry has been consistent in the face of the RNCs distortions and lies.

 

As discussed in another thread, I feel that Kerry's stance on the war, espeically during the deomcratic primary, was very weak. I thought he wanted it both ways, and could not articulate a cogent plan because he was scared to do so, politically. I personally agreed with Howard Dean, that it was the wrong war at the wrong time with the wrong people. I think alot of people do. I thought Dean had courage to say, at a fairly tough moment when Saddam Hussein was captured, that he did not feel it was a smart use of our money, time and force. That being said, the political reality was pretty clear in the next few weeks -- Kerry crushed him.

It seemed to me that John Kerry was - in general - trying so hard to be inoffensive as a candidate, that he would not say anything that could be misinterpreted as weak. I did not, and do not, feel that is leadership from a candidate. Kerry displayed a reluctance to articulate a clear alternative to this current administration's strategy on terrorism in the past, and it is hurting him now.

And regardless, the democratic party nominated someone who made a series of political judgement calls in regard to discussing the war candidly. Fine. Point Bush. Kerry was being political.

But let's not get carried away with this point. It is not point, set, match. Kerry's past reluctance to pointedly disagree with the war does not somehow make the Bush administrations policy, by default, correct or sustainable or smart. Pointing the finger at Kerry's so-called "flip-flopping," rather than articulating a set of specific principles, strategies and goals for the current war, is a really disturbing leadership trait.

Rather than being accountable for the very dangerous decisions he has made -- by discussing candidly the shifting justifications for the war, the American and Iraqi deaths, the near future of the war in Iraq, the financial impact of these wars, the strategy for making us safer at home, our long term strategy with other difficult countries, the conditions for men and women when/if they return home -- Bush is being politically inoffensive and saying very little of consequence. To me, this political maneuvering is far more difficult to digest that Kerry's. I think that Bush is neglecting his duties as leader of this country in discussing these issues, and his maneuvering has serious consequences.

The Bush administration managed this war. And they need to be held accountable. And I have yet to see them be acountable. Desperately trying to convince the electorate that Kerry is not a viable alternative is not taking responsibility and being accountable -- and trying to boil it all down to a contest of 'resolve' is no way to havee a serious discussion on this subject. Alot of people have 'resolve.' You can afford to when you are an incumbent president with both houses of Congress. But making mistakes proudly does not mean you are not acccountable for the mistakes. And these guys have made awful mistakes.

The fact that our president attacks Kerry's political inconsistencies rather than speaking coherently to the serious problems of this war indicate, to me, that he should no longer be employed as president of our country. I mean, we should just concede the point and move on in the debate. YES: Kerry'd political strategy included a less-than-totally-candid platform on the war. Okay, fine, we'll take the hit. It's not the only, or most important, variable in this equation.

 

I just wanted to point out, andy, that the Karzai government may not control much of Afghanistan outside of Kabul, and a few other areas, but traditional Afghan warlords, from different ethnic groups, have de facto control over large areas of the country that are not friends of the Taliban. In fact, it is trouble with these warlords that is a great deal of Karzai's problems. The Taliban, and their AQ friends, are certainly #1 on the radar screen, but the traditional Afghan tribal pushing and shoving for power and control is at least as big a problem, and a key, perhaps the key, to Afghanistan's future. And another reason why we should have stuck with the Afghan region as our focus, before even thinking about what Bush did in Iraq.

 

It's not about 'just focusing on the future,' -- the thing is, the Bush Administration architechted this war, not John Kerry. What I am saying is, just as Kerry should be accountable for his past missteps and take responsibility for the evolution of his statements, his votes, his contributions and his future plan, the Bush administration should do likewise.

I did not hear the bit on NPR about the troops, that is interesting.

And by the way, you're right on the Vietnam stuff, Kerry should have left that alone. Or at least done it more subtle-ly or artistically.

 

Gee, the conservative-owned Chicago Tribune runs an article (op-ed?) to make sure that people's perception of Kerry as a flip-flopper does not diminish.

Tried and true technique. You're either with us or against us. Pro or con. Black or white. Christian or terrorist.

 

I know the meaning of Vietnam has been blanched out many times over for the purposes of this election, but I think that war is not a bad example of things we do not want to repeat -- comapring the wars and the leadership and strategic significance does not make me cringe so much as the "Vietnam is the litmus test by which we will judge the individuals who wish to lead us in 2004." Comparing the wars is appropriate -- and sort of obvious -- I think. Not because "Iraq = Vietnam," but because there are lessons to be learned from that war that I, for one, am not sure this administration quite learned. That's a fine discussion (to be had by other folks while I watch them on TV, I am not a Vietnam or Iraq expert...)

 

Damn, dude. Best post on this topic so far. Excellent.



basso- I agree, this campaign has dwelled way too long in the past, unnecssarily so, and Kerry brought it upon himself with that whole silly damned "reporting for duty" and whatnot.

But if you want them to only talk about plans for the future, then that is making things a little too convenient for W. Not including his very recent (and still unfolding) record as the president would bode well for him, since he has made so many mistakes and never, ever holds himself or anyone working under him accountable.

Bush is not the kind of political opportunist Kerry is- Kerry is too slick and too concerned with doing the right thing in people's eyes. But being of a single-track mind and 'never wavering from the path' has it's disadvantages too, especially when your plans are blowing up in your face and people are dying for your mistakes.

Kerry is more slick and calculated, and I find that kind of smarmy, but to see the world as the current as the RNC portrays it is to truly live in a fantasy world. All the incredible blunders and mistakes just don't exist. The economy is going to be fine. No, no evidence, just trust us. Iraq will be a wonderful and beautiful democracy. Nevermind that casualties per month are constantly climbing and now entire regions are in the control of insurgents, everything is going to be fine. After all, we've handled it so well already, haven't we? Trust us. Four more years of the current resolute path and things will be fine, hey, it's gone great so far...

And speaking of being politically opportunist, how's this: the US isn't going to make a major advance to take back the insurgent controlled areas of Iraq because it's going to be major battles with high casualties and Bush can't afford that at this crucial juncture.

By the way, I utterly disagree with Kerry on not sending more troops to Iraq. Totally the wrong move- we need more soldiers in there. We only have this chance to get things right, and the only way to do it is with massive presence.

Man, if only the neocons went with Powell's doctrine of overwhelming force in the first place.

 

If I heard right, Kerry followed up the "I won't send more of our boys over there" quote with his plan to bring the world back to the table and get some troop commitments from the UN and NATO. That way, we could bolster the forces with outside troops and we would not have to send more of OUR already overextended forces to Iraq.

Kerry just has a better plan.

 

I'm just wondering if the world will help us with the Iraq situation. If they don't want to help, what does Kerry have planned? Of course, it can't hurt to try.

 

I think that the world will help us once the man who thumbed his nose at them is out of power. GWB will NEVER get the same kind of worldwide support that Kerry will be able to raise simply because GWB basically told the world "f*** you, we're invading anyway."

If Kerry doesn't get ANY worldwide support (which I see as a very low probability), he does have a plan in place to increase the size of the military and hopefully that will allow us to rotate some of the troops home for a while.