I don't know if you've seen it but there is a tape of an interview Kerry did about two years ago. It was either Russert or Matthews. I think the former. When asked about Iraq, Kerry was as hawkish as anyone could be. He was even asked pointedly, "you sound like you are ahead of the President and you colleagues in the house on this." He replied, "Yes, I am ahead of them on disarming Saddam Hussein.

Maybe I'll see when he was on with Russert and look for a transcript if I get time.

bill,

You could almost put the entire speech in bold.

With the Bush criticisms aside, I would guess this speech was made by the president.

Wow, that almost sounds like maybe he flip-flopped on the issue.

Read my flips.

I am sure that Karl Rove has this tape ready to go, for the last week before the election.

The problem, of course, is that neither the Senator nor his moonbat supporters nor his wingmen in the mainstream media care in the slightest about Iraq or terrorism let alone consistency.

The problem, of course, is that neither the Senator nor his moonbat supporters nor his wingmen in the mainstream media care in the slightest about Iraq or terrorism let alone consistency.

But some people, somewhere DO, and he needs their votes. Otherwise, he'd run naked through Boston common with a "Peace" banner. And a Gucci man-bag.

The only problem, is the new mantra is that Kerry was basing his decisions/speeches/hawkish opinions on all the lies Bush was telling him about Iraq.

I believe he changes his mind, and that Cheney was dead on, when he said he changed it as the politics change, but the Kerry camp and his supporters are full of excuses.

STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT!

You're trying to hold Senator John Kerry to his record. But he's not a 'liberal' as he'll gladly tell you now. Sure, he's been wrong his entire career but right now he's saying-- that's right he's telling every American with his words, not deeds which would be too easy to fake-- he's getting it right.

For goodness sake Bill, he's accusing President Bush of not telling the truth and you insist on trying to discern what Kerry actually means? Gosh, if Derrida wasn't dead he could tell you full well words don't actually have any 'meaning'!!

Quit picking on Senator "tax and spend from Mass" Kerry.

Republican shill...

/sarcasm

Do you think it's his face growing longer with each lie instead of his nose?

Bill: "But some people, somewhere DO, and he needs their votes."

I don't think he's going to get enough of them to win. Too many of the people who bother to vote are able to add one plus one and get two.

Of course, now we know that the reason Bush didn't get to build a bigger coalition is that the French, Russians and Chinese were being bought off by Saddam. But that obviously is Bush's fault.

Great post!. I truly believe Sen Kerry believes he has been consistent on his Iraq postion. After reading the speech, he was consistent. He was for and against the war, before President Bush even had a position. He could point to this speech and no matter what the outcome, he could position himself on the most popular side.

Sen Kerry is a consumate snake.

I am not sure how this is different from what Kerry is saying today. As he said:

"So the issue is not over the question of whether or not the threat is real, or whether or not people agree there is a threat. It is over what means we will take, and when, in order to try to eliminate it."

As Kerry has said over and over, he is critical of the way that Bush has gone about the war in Iraq.

And at Friday's debate:

"KERRY: Well, let me tell you straight up: I've never changed my mind about Iraq. I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat. I always believed he was a threat. Believed it in 1998 when Clinton was president. I wanted to give Clinton the power to use force if necessary.

But I would have used that force wisely, I would have used that authority wisely, not rushed to war without a plan to win the peace."

Sure you can call it monday morning quarterbacking, but the criticisms of Bush's execution of the war are valid. And there are serious questions about how Bush described the threat Saddam posed – even with the intelligence information he had at that time.

From Kerry’s speech:

“If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.”

Rollins -

"So the issue is not over the question of whether or not the threat is real, or whether or not people agree there is a threat. It is over what means we will take, and when, in order to try to eliminate it."

I anticipated and understand that criticism. I address this in my post:

John Kerry's new criticisms of the Bush Administration's focus on Iraq, if not the particulars of the execution of that focus, are simply not credible

John Kerry has criticized the President's coalition-building (though I find it unrealistic) and post-war planning - these are fair game.

But he also has taken to criticizing the Aministration's FOCUS on Iraq after 9-11, claiming that it diverted resources. In contrast, kerry's judgement that Iraq was a worthy threat is a very real and stark contradiction. A couple of things:

1. Authorizing force based with the desire for international cooperation is one thing, but if that cooperation is not obtained, and Kerry's statements are taken at face value about Saddam's threat, it's gross negliegence not to act. Period. Debating that is s different argument from the one that Kerry is making.

2. John Kerry urged a specific EARLIER focus on Iraq, AFTER 9-11. You can't marshall a coalition and pressure Saddam for complete inspections WITHOUT a massive military build-up in the area, as Kerry specifically highlights in the extended speech.

In effect, he explicitly endorsed policies, that by his new assessment, diverted resources away from the work in Afghanistan. His new rhetoric is nakedly dishonest distortion.

One can still disagree with Bush and want to vote for Kerry, but the idea that Kerry will better represent your anti-war view is ludicrous. He shifts to an insulting, outrageous degree.

The crticism in my post is 100% correct.

Rollins, the only problem is that during the exact same debate on Friday, he also said that Iraq was not a threat and that we should have focused on Bin Laden/Iran/NoKo.

I keep trying to be unpartisan and understand what he's saying and he still confuses the hell out of me.

And what's interesting is, it's [Iran] a threat that has grown while the president has been preoccupied with Iraq, where there wasn't a threat.

SOMEBODY HELP ME UNDERSTAND THIS!

He did something similar in the first debate. He asked if Iraq was a mistake in a question and said no. 10 minutes later, he's ripping into stump speech mode and says "but the president made a mistake invading Iraq".

This level of confusing rhetoric has to be more than just political wind changing. Right?

Sorry for spamming, should wait a minute or two before posting in case I think of something else.

What scares the most about what Kerry he says is when he says that the money that we've spent on Iraq could have been used on things like...health care. But he wants to increase military forces in Iraq...but save money for it on firehouses in NY instead of Baghdad. Or something. Is he just clutching on any vacuous criticism of the WoT or does he sincerly believe we should focus on domestic policies instead of national defense. Although he probably said "hunt you down and destroy you wherever you are" 10 minutes before or after saying that. That's until he says that terrorists are in 60 countries and we can't possibly hunt them all down. And then he says something else.

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!

Some of the "flip flop" criticisms are admittedly spinned. I don't consider his Patriot Act criticism flippy. But when he starts talking about military force, he makes my head spin like the Exorcist.

To know something is false but claim it's true is to mislead (lie). Bush, Kerry, and the world's intelligence organizations thought Iraq had WMDs. No lie here.
Kerry however, knows there's no lie (unless he's claiming Bush knew in advance there were no WMDs), but knowingly misleads (lies to) people about it anyway. Who's the liar?

You said man-bag!

Bwa ha ha!

Yet more examples of Kerry's flip flopping.

Kerry flip flops because he lacks the character to take a stand out of true conviction. He is too much a political animal, just caring about short term polls and popularity.

That alone makes Kerry unfit to be president, especially in time of war. That kind of lack of leadership can very well get Americans killed.

Bill -
I think what Kerry was saying was that if the war in Iraq was suppose to be about getting WMD’s then yes, since we believed Saddam had them, then we should have pursued that at the same time as going to Afghanistan. The debate at that time was going on right before the mid-term elections, so you had a lot of political posturing and campaign rhetoric getting in the way of real discussions of the issues.

To your points- 1. Kerry said you should have a coalition unless the threat was imminent – then you take action even if you don't have a coalition.

2. I don’t see where Kerry is suggesting you take resources from Afghanistan to go after Saddam.

Your post is 100% your opinion. Also, I am not anti-war, I don’t know why you say that. I believe Kerry will lead a more effective war on terror.

I've often thought that a really good Bush commercial (which they did to an extent on the windsurfing ad) would be to have Kerry in split screen debating himself. But beyond that, though, I'm continually amazed that Kerry isn't auguring in like Dukakis. Ignoring all else, I'd've thought the basic illogic of many of Kerry's positions would be apparent to even the dullest among us. The illogic of stating at one point that the Pres. wasn't focussed enough on Iraq and then later subscribing to the whole Bin Laden cult thing -- well it makes my head hurt. That is until you realize that he was likely trying to position himself for this election. If Bush goes in after a speech like that and kicks butt & finds WMD, Kerry can say he was out ahead of the issue and take the national security issue away from the Republicans. I suspect he's currently executing the backup plan to the above... "nuance" the hell outta everything so that he can always pull out a quote to fit the situation.

- Eric.

Once again Kerry's brazen opportunism is highlighted. It is after all, the defining characteristic of his political life. If the man has any core beliefs other than a desire for power, it is indiscernable to me.

"Kerry flip flops because he lacks the character to take a stand out of true conviction. He is too much a political animal, just caring about short term polls and popularity. "

I absolutely agree with this assessment.

This is one of the reasons I intend to vote for Bush.

Rollins -

Your logic skills are rusty on thsi one, and it annoys me that you cannot absorb and logically prioritze the mans words. As he planned, there's something for everyone I suppose.

1. I think what Kerry was saying was that if the war in Iraq was suppose to be about

There is no "think what he is saying." There is "saying." Kerry makes a judgment about the threat from Iraq with the SAME intelligence provided to the President. If that information, which he outlines in his speech, is the information that you choose to believe based on the assessment by US intelligence, based on Kerry's own words, you act.

2. The talk of imminence and allies are irrelevant. How is Kerry, Bush or any other human being supposed to m ake a judgement to go to war with the ASSUMPTION that they will be able to know the imminence (we didn't) and that allies would sign on? Read it again. Kerry describes in very uncertain terms, based on the same intelligence that Bush had, the threat from Saddam. The simple failure to understand the inconsistencies in the various arguments is frustrating.

Kerry isn't making the argument that the President misled the American poeple because Saddam didn't have WMD there, he's making the President's exact argument, and throwing in escape hatches sp that he'd have room to equivicate and criticize if things went badly.

You cannot assess the real; nature of a threat and then say "but only if you get allies." this is the exact foreign policy that Kerry is defending himself against (global test).

3. I don’t see where Kerry is suggesting you take resources from Afghanistan to go after Saddam.

Kerry asserts that the credible threat of force (which hinges on military build-up) is necessary to force Saddam Hussein to finally comply, voicing approval for the President's military appropriation to Kuwait, etc. He then authorizes the power to wage war, but only after reaffirming the nature of the threat from Saddam and criticizing the President for not takling advantage of the international unity and dealing with Iraq sooner AFTER 9-11.

Now I realize that some folks' world is made of sunshine and candy canes, and that tinpot dictators like Saddam Hussein take orders from the international community without a gun to their head (in the form of a few hundred thousand troops), but it's pretty explicit what is necessary to take John Kerry's advice: The same military build-up that he claims would also siphon resources away from Afghanistan. Even if you ignored that possibility, a mere endorsement of the willingness to use force siphons resources!

There are arguments that he can make now (and he has made) that do not contradict his previous statements, but he has moved to a new level of rhetoric that is pure deception.

This is not opinion, it is fact. Take the time to read the whole speech, then listen to last Friday's debate, draw a damn chart if you need to. And I'll leave you with this ...

And while the administration has failed to provide any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance?
...
The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and, obviously, as we have said, grow it. These weapons represent an unacceptable threat.

Pre-flip flopping (at least on this issue). Kerry changes position more often than I change my socks. If the Flat Earth society became a political force Kerry would tell us the Navy should stay in port so they don't fall off the end of the world. I can respect a person who firmly believes his convictions - even if I disagree with them (Alan Colmes comes to mind). I can not respect a person who changes "beliefs" based on opinion polls and for political gain. If he truly felt this way then, then why the drastic change now? Can anyone say "political expediency"? I said it before and I will say it again: the Dems will "slander any person, obfuscate any position" in order to win an election.

Kerry did not vote to immediately send it the troops, he voted to give Bush the authority to use force only AFTER other options had been exhausted. This speech shows how reluctantly he gave that authority and how he expected Bush to use that authority wisely, with the cooperation of a broad coalition of allies, and only as a last resort.

That vote helped convince the UN to pass new tougher resolutions against Saddam and got Saddam to let the weapons inspectors back in and to cooperate with the weapons inspectors. Bush kicked out the inspectors without letting them finish the job. Those weapons inspectors were the best hope for disarming Saddam peacefully and keeping him disarmed without going to war. We now know what the inspectors would have found if they had been permitted to stay: no weapons, no active weapons programs.

Bush bears the responsibility for this ill-considered and poorly executed war. More than a hundred billion dollars later, with thousands of Americans maimed or wounded, thousands of Iraqis killed, and more than a thousand Americans dead, Iraq is a mess. Even the green zone isn't safe. And there's no end in sight for the American occupation. How long will it take America's reputation to recover from the stain of Abu Ghraib? Bush's war has been a disaster.

Kerry specifically and emphatically warned Bush of the risk of this kind of outcome if Bush pursued war without the support of the world community and without the necessary preparations to do the hard work of building a new nation in Iraq. Bush should have listened.

I just wonder. How long would 'winning the peace' have taken were it not for the 'self-fullfilling prophecy' of the Democratic and liberal media rhetoric. They've done more to encourage the insurgency and enflame anti-american sentiment across the world than disarming a mad man should have wrought. What is the rest of the world supposed to think about the spread of freedom when it's being headed by a supposed incompentant, lieing, oil hungry opportunist. When that notion is advanced by so many supposed statesmen with the help of the "objective media", we may as well bring the boys home and get ready to protect ourselves at home. Freedom can't be advanced with that kind of rhetoric leading the way. John Kerry does not believe freedom can change societies and stop the resentment. John Kerry has not mentioned any believe in the liberating power or freedom. John Kerry is a traitor...always has been...always will be...unfit for command.