But Bill,

Kerry says he has been consistent, how can this be?

Read The Transcript Here

Let's face it, the campaign has shifted and Finally Kerry's positions and his record in the Senate are coming to bear on the truth.

The fact the Kerry trusts his base that he will be as liberal a President as he is a Senator, and is only trying to convince others of something his own record proves he is not.

Regards,
Sonar5

How dare you question Kerry's patriotism!

I notice that the video skips 6 months (10/02-5/03), not quoting Kerry once. Probably not very important, except when you consider that during that time the H.J. Res 114 was passed, as well as the last 3 months leading up to and the Iraq invasion itself! The next quote doesn't come until after Bush declares major combat operations over. I wonder why the RNC ignores that period of time? I'm not saying that Kerry has had some unassailably consistent position or anything, but that video seems to omit too much to be credible.

One quote they don't mention:

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts says: "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."
-February 24, 2003, St. Petersburg Times, Pinellas Edition

"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."

SH had no WMD, no collaboration with 9/11 terrorists and made no measurable contribution to the spread of WMD.

Was he a threat? YES

Was he a grave, gathering, imminent or substantial threat? NO

Given that he wasn't number 1 or 2 or even 3 on any conceivable bad boy 'hit list' his removal, while beneficial in some small measure, wasn't critical to the WOT or in any way central to it. What he did provide was an ideal test case on how the world was going to act against the future potential of dangerous regimes post 9/11. Would the world react in the same vein as after his invasion of Kuwait? with the US leading the way and shouldering the heavy load of assembling a large military/diplomatic coalition to disarm him? or would the US decide to act unilateraly in it's own selfish short term interest regardless of the long term necessity of a worlwide consensus?

The bottom line? The US disarmed itself not Sadam by showing to the world that the US under this administration is incapable of achieving consensus and conversly the US has reinforced the notion of 'might is right' and that nations believing themselves 'targets' of the US should arm themselves with nuclear weapons 1st and seek diplomatic solutions second.

4 more years will mark a return to US isolationism not driven internaly as before but by external re-alignment of the worlds other 'powers' something Blair fought to prevent and sadly failed

mantis -

Your quote is irrelevant. (Some of) his quotes supporting the decision and nature of the invasion of Iraq are from 2004.

Diplomacy and making a case are completely separate points from Kerry's largely unequivocal statements about the nature of the threat during the primaries when compared to his assertions now. Period.

You are being diversionary and intellectually dishonest if you claim otherwise.

Postit,

That is a fine argument for why we shouldn't have gone to war. But it does little to explain why Kerry has had so many public stances on it. If he really believes what you just said, then Kerry must just care about his political ambitions more.

Mantis,

Come on now...

Here is why Kerry voted for it, IMHO.

It is Seared, I say Seared into my memory.

The Fall election of 2002. That is why they voted for it, and then look right after the election when the dem rats changed their minds.

Now you tell me, what changed between the time he voted for authoirty in Congress, an dthe time he started spewing opposition. He made that Vote, only because he didn't want it to come bite him in the backside, but alas, it did.

They were trying to take over the Senate, and surely voting against a Popular Issue would have hurt them further at that time.

I remember shortly after that Nov. Election, the attacks on the Admin's position started again.

If Kerry could he would go back and vote the way Kennedy did, who doesn't try to hide how liberal he is.

Kerry only voted for it for political gain which did not reflect his position.

I never believed him from the start. It was and is always political for him, designed with only one goal, the Presidency, nothing else matters to him, and his voting record supports that.

It is amazing that Kerry back in 1997-1998 was so gung ho about going after Saddam, then only changes when dean is running affront to his appointed Nomination so he flips it when convenient to whomever he needs support from.

And that is the worst kind of President our country could have.

It means Kerry does not have what it takes to be Commander in Chief, or President. It goes to character, and in that department, kerry fails miserably.

Regards,
Sonar5

Qinn

On what do you justify the notion that Kerry has had many differing public stances on the invasion and occupation of Iraq and that by inference GWB has not? Republican spin? And on what basis do you suppose Kerry might "care about his political ambitions more" more than say GWB?

Get a life and try some original thought once in a while.

Watcher stole my line!

A little historical perspective -

Kerry has condemned GWB's coalition-building capability, yet when the was a united coalition assembled to defeat Hussein (Gulf War I), Kerry voted against it (before he supported it).

Even today, Kerry just doesnt get it. He stated "Osama bin Laden should have been the complete focus of our effort in the war on terror".
That thinking demonstrates a clear misunderstanding as to the state of global terror. Killing bin Laden, although definitely satisfying, will do little to curb the threat posed to the US by radical Islam. The Global War on Terror is just that - a GLOBAL war on terrror.
http://occamstweezer.blogspot.com/2004/10/did-he-just-say-what-i-think-he-said.html

postit,

Sorry, I thought maybe you actually watched the video that was linked to in the story. Or do you actually think that all those statements represent a 100% consistent stance (both Kerry and Edwards think they have been 100% consistant)?

"On what do you justify the notion that Kerry has had many differing public stances on the invasion and occupation of Iraq and that by inference GWB has not?"

The snarky answer is "ears".

If we do it by the numbers of times the question's been asked, it would be particularly poignant. There was one press conference which outlined this: Bush came out to discuss something else entirely, and each of the 10+ run-on questions boiled down to "Was it a mistake to go into Iraq?" Led to 10+ answers equal to "no."

Sonar5,
So your claim is that Kerry was anti-war all along, but voted for the resolution because of the election? Seems inconsistent. Anyway, you see a steady lineup of quotes from him in the video saying we need to worry about Saddam , we needed to do something about him in 97-98 (criticized Bill Clinton about inspections, etc.), and that we needed to do something about him in '02. From then I see a steadily growing dissatisfation with Bush's handling of the situation. Why does the RNC skip this period of time?

As far as political aspirations go, I go on the assumption that every politician is looking down the road at his/her options pretty much all the time. They're politicians. If they weren't that way, they probably wouldn't have gotten into office anyway.

Bill,
Where does he say he's pro war in 2004?

All I really see here is a candidate who was very anxious for war, and one who was clearly concerned about the threat of Saddam, but isn't really excited about taking the country to war unless there's no other choice. I think we had another choice.

Anyway, why does the RNC skip 6 months?

Al sez

"Was it a mistake to go into Iraq?"

Check the polls, the American public already knows the correct answer to this question. Being consistently wrong is consistent but it's still wrong. Kerry has not been proved wrong GWB has and if Kerry is conflicted about Iraq then he acurately mirrors public opinion. The public craves consistency but they also crave the truth and don't appreciate being deceived.

Postit,

SH had no WMD,

There are some Kurds and Iranians that might take issue with that.

no collaboration with 9/11 terrorists

Aside from being on the same side as Al Quaeda. No, Hussein didn't personally send Atta et al, to attack the US. It hardly matters - if you require legalistic justification for fighting your enemies, whatever guise they wear or flag they fly, you've lost.

and made no measurable contribution to the spread of WMD.

I'll answer this one with something that will answer all of the 'No WMD/Threat' claims:

Are you sure?

Are you absolutely, beyond amy possible doubt, sure?

You might be sure enough to bet your life - don't you dare bet mine, and that of my children.

Was he a threat? YES

Thank you - some sense. Too bad it doesn't last...

Was he a grave, gathering, imminent or substantial threat? NO

Grave? Aside from a decade of playing shell games with WMDs, no, not grave at all. Oh - aside from mass graves, that is. Gathering? Same thing - did you have a line on on his plans? Are you sure?

Imminent - this one is one of the more ridiculous assertions - 'it wasn't an imminent threat!'

At what point is a threat imminent? And you seem awful willing to bet a whole lot of lives that you'd be able to detect and stop it, when it's imminent, and not before. What's the test, Postit? What city is gone, what kindergarten is held hostage, what bus ripped apart, to fulfill this 'imminent' critera?

Given that he wasn't number 1 or 2 or even 3 on any conceivable bad boy 'hit list'

No, invading your neighbors twice, flagrant use of chemical weapons, supporting terrorism, that won't do it at all.

his removal, while beneficial in some small measure,

A lot of those small measures were freed by the USMC, from the Children's Prison.

Children's Prison.

Toddlers. In. Prison.

I accept your resignation from the human race. I have no words for the vileness you so easily whitewash.

wasn't critical to the WOT or in any way central to it.

Aside from being a central location in the midst of our enemies, from being a demonstration of force, ability and goodwill (yes, goodwill - if we didn't care, we'd have let everything but the oil pumping stations fall into anarchy; and it's not, despite what you see on TV and the NYT), from putting pressure from two sides on Iran, and from removing an enemy government - aside from those, no, not central at all.

What he did provide was an ideal test case on how the world was going to act against the future potential of dangerous regimes post 9/11. Would the world react in the same vein as after his invasion of Kuwait? with the US leading the way and shouldering the heavy load of assembling a large military/diplomatic coalition to disarm him?

And the world, aside from a few true allies, failed that test. A moral and ethical failure of monumental proportions - unless, of course, you value process over results...

or would the US decide to act unilateraly in it's own selfish short term interest regardless of the long term necessity of a worlwide consensus?

Ah, you do. Consensus with moral imbeciles? No, thank you.

The bottom line? The US disarmed itself not Sadam

Have you been paying attention at all to the past 18 months? Who is occupying whom, Postit? I don't seem to remember Iraqi soldiers searching Missouri for hidden WMDs.

by showing to the world that the US under this administration is incapable of achieving consensus

You say this like it's a bad thing. Frankly, lack of consensus with France, China, Germany, Iran, Syria, Egypt, and their ilk I see as being a sign of being on the right path.

and conversly the US has reinforced the notion of 'might is right'

Ah, so removing a vile dictator by force of arms is 'might is right'. No moral equivalency here, no.

and that nations believing themselves 'targets' of the US should arm themselves with nuclear weapons 1st and seek diplomatic solutions second.

Sort of like Libya.

Nope, neither Iran, nor North Korea, nor Iraq were doing anything of the sort before 2003, not at all. All this just sprang up after mean ol' Uncle Sam started picking on innocent weaklings. They're just trying to defend themselves from the depredations of a hyperpower gone mad.

Nothing at all to do with the fact that they're run (were run, in the case of Iraq) by evil men. Nope, purely defensive. We wouldn't want the lone superpower actually removing them, now, would we?

And please, spare me the protestations that you do want them gone. I don't buy them, from people who argue for Hussein.

4 more years will mark a return to US isolationism not driven internaly as before but by external re-alignment of the worlds other 'powers' something Blair fought to prevent and sadly failed.

I managed to stop laughing long enough to respond to this one. When Europe gets their shit together militarily, call me. Until then, have fun trying to lease heavy-lift aircraft from the Russians. China? When they've got a dozen carrier battlegroups, then I'll be scared. Russia? It's sad how far they've fallen - please see Chechen War, Parts One and Two.

"Was he a threat? YES

Was he a grave, gathering, imminent or substantial threat? NO"

I keep seeing this rhetorical device over and over. It can't possibly be the same person so...where is this coming from? I'm referring to asking a question with a one word answer in all caps. I had it on my blog of like...3 readers. I'm confoosed.

Dear, Noah D

9/11 lessons to be learned:

#1 - Two oceans a good defense strategery no longer make!

#2 - The world's premier conventional military can impose it's will on a nation of 25M in the short term but not the medium or long term and you don't get to stand up much more than a puppet regime in the short term (see also Vietnam). Getting from this point to a truly self governing democratic government is the hard yards this administration has already proven unwilling or unable to do as in the case of Afghanistan (and again Vietnam), regardless of the fact that 10M of a voting population of 8M has registered to vote for the mayor of Kabul.

#3 No one but the mad mulahs and extreme terrorist of AQ will attack the US or its intersts directly, but neither will they join in the mad crusade.

Postit

How many years did SH thumb his nose at the UN with them not doing anything? Are you aware that when the first Gulf War ended it wasn't really the end. Do you know when the armistice(sp) agreement was signed, Iraq was suppose to abide by a number of conditions and they failed to abide any of them, that alone was reason to go to war.

Oil for Food anyone. Is there any wonder we received no support from France/Germany/Russia (Kerry's close personal friends). How much more diplomacy was necessary? None of these countries were going to come along for the ride, why waste our breath. My understanding of the Kerry's position is he would hold a summit, bring a checkbook, and ask each of them what it would cost to get them to buy off on what we need to do. Sorry, doesn't work for me.

Look, I'm not pleased with everything the President has done, but my God, I think of what Kerry would do with the same situations and I'm scared out of my mind.

Just a quick question. Why is it that a man running for President with 20+ years of experience in the Senate, does not say a word about his 20+ years in the Senate? You would think he has done something that would be noteworthy enough for people to look at and say, "You know, he's proven he understands what needs to be done, just look at his record."

Just wondering.

1#: EXACTLY! So what's this "firehouses in Baghdad, not NY" argument I've seen?

#2: "Impose its will"..."puppet government"

Hush.

"Being consistently wrong is consistent but it's still wrong."

Watch the evening news from the green zone reporters with that in mind.

Mike

UN resolutions, oil for food that's all so pre 9/11 which changed everything, didn't you get the memo or attend the stump speech?

GWB missed a golden opportunity to unite the country and unite the world because he leads with his heart not his head and expects everyone to follow or be dammned.

The senate is a very different place from the WH and I'm not surprised he doesn't mention it because it's not all that relevant, about as relevant as what you achieved as governor of Texas I suppose. But if you need some positive examples howabout his work on normalising relations with Vietnam alongside Hagel and McCain or his participation in the investigation of BCCI both worthy projects and far more substantial than the previous governor of Texas achieved. And if your going to list negatives don't even bother with the GOP spin on weapons systems or intelligence funding that Cheney led the fight to cut as Sec of Def.

That Cheney is a work of art, he can argue both sides of a position with equal knowledge and clarity. A better president with better ideas could put the man to work for some positive benifit to the citizens of this country, another time another place maybe.

Al sez:

Watch the evening news from the green zone reporters with that in mind.

As opposed to the 'truth' brought to you by this adminitrations positive spin emanating from several thoudsands of miles away in DC?

Yeah, I'll give your notion of the truth the same weight as the 'Feith based' intelligence that got us into this mess.

Mantis,

Let me try to frame my position on Kerry's actions.

Kerry will say whatever is expedient and favors himself politically, position true position not withstanding.

1997-1998, democrats in Office, he flies inthe wind with them.

Run up to Fall election 2002, Kerry is Pro-war since it is popular.

Post election 2002, Kerry begins anti-war stance along with many other democrats once lection is over.

The consistency is that Kerry cares only about himself and whatever is popular at he time for him politically.

He is out for himslef, and only himself.

I think it is highly probable, In My opinion, he has more than just a potential Sleep Disorder that would keep him out of the Military today. It has been quoted that Kerry sleepwalks.

I also want you to think about Kerry's stances and actions and consider this:

Narcissistic Personality Disorder

No postit,
I'm using primary source material to make my judgment that Iraq isn't the Vietnam it is portrayed to be, nightly. Unless you think that everyone in the military, everyone who has visited Iraq, all foreign reporters, and the American Iraqi community are all sock puppets. Not just 'on Cheney's side in hoping for a good outcome' - they'd need to be puppets.

If a certifiably evil confirmed liar says "Gravity makes things fall", does that mean things _don't_ fall?

If a certifiably evil confirmed liar says "Gravity makes things fall", does that mean things _don't_ fall?

Did Cheney really say that?

Who are your secret sources Al? come on out with it. I don't doubt there is a community within Iraq that wholeheartedly supports the administrations efforts and desire a democratic and free Iraq I just don't see that community as being much more than a dwindling minority (dwindling to Jordan mostly) but you may have better information than me. So you ought to share rather than hoard it, lets break the media censorship on good news from Iraq. Together we can make a difference, how about it?

Kerry's problem isn't so much that he changed his mind from position A to position B and supported it with reasons why he did so, he has gone from position A, to position B, back to A, then back to B etc.

I can go for somebody changing their mind once-with reasonable support, but when a person keeps changing their mind (often when polls appear to be going the way it was changed) I have to wonder if there is any real substance there beyond getting elected.

I just plain do not trust Kerry to protect our country, he hasn't given me any reason to.

Just you, any half-assed GOP talking point drivel is good enough as a cover for keeping Kerry out of your pocket book. Just be more honest about it that's all I ask.

Interestingly, Edwards implicitly admitted in the debate last night that he and Kerry would have left Saddam in power. I have a post over at my site about the admission.

I didn't say "I've lived amongst the Iraqis and they think Bush is a God".

I said I've formed my own impressions from sources that aren't Bush, Cheney, Haliburton, or Shaitan.

You won't trust anything I say as a source, and you won't allow that I've done anything other than suck at the Administrations' teat. If you care with half the spirit that you argue, you _can_ find piles of information. Put it through whatever de-spin machine you think it merits.

If we had extreme casualties, I'd sing a different tune. If American trained Iraqis weren't dying in support of the interim government at a faster pace than Americans, I'd be reconsidering. But this is quite possibly the most one-sided war ever. Even when you switch to the "insurgency" run by a foreign national, the discrepancy is amazing.

1) How many people do you have to have waiting in line to have casualty reports like the last several car bombs against recruitment centers? Does that alone say anything?

2) Name a war, any war, where the loser took less than 0.25% KIA. Heck. Name one where the winner took less than .25% KIA. (I'd exempt the French, but... I can't even think of any recent wars where they surrendered that fast. And _ALL_ of the historical French wars make this look like arguing over the ant at the picnic.)

Postis it doesn't take talking points to realize that Kerry is inconsistent on the issue, it just takes a brain and some critical thinking-I have both.