Gypsy
10-07-2004, 19:28
I think most of us here are more than aware of the many flip flops the senator is known for. Since someone here recently PM'd me looking for some help in countering her far left lib buddies thought this might come in handy.
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/october/1007_kerry_debate_flip_flops.shtml
Analysis: Kerry Debates Himself with Flip Flops
By Steve Roeder
Talon News
October 7, 2004
WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) repeatedly changed his position on key issues during the first presidential debate last week in Miami. With the second debate scheduled for Friday night in Missouri, President George W. Bush must focus multi-lateral responses to debate Kerry and his ever changing viewpoints.
Kerry's claims in last week's debate contradict earlier stances involving a variety of issues.
Kerry said last week the "reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction, not the removal Of Saddam Hussein."
However, in September 2002 on CBS's "Face the Nation," Kerry claimed, "It's what [Hussein] may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that -- that I think present the greatest danger."
Kerry also flopped concerning the issue of voting to authorize the use of force.
"Even knowing there was no connection with al Qaeda, he would still have done everything the same way. Those are [Bush's] words. Now, I would not."
Less than two months ago, Kerry maintained otherwise.
"Yes, I would have voted for the authority," Kerry said. "I believe it's the right authority for a president to have."
Kerry also asserted at the debate, "I've had one position, one consistent position, that Saddam Hussein was a threat," yet only one week earlier at NYU, he stated, "We now know that Iraq [posed] no imminent threat to our security."
Kerry also flipped his earlier view in the same debate of the Iraq invasion as being a "mistake." When asked by moderator Jim Lehrer, "Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?", Kerry changed his view and responded, "No, and they don't have to, providing we have the leadership that we put -- that I'm offering."
Just minutes earlier, Kerry described the Iraq War by saying, "We can't leave a failed Iraq. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake of judgment to go there and take the focus off of Osama bin Laden. It was."
Kerry also alluded to a "global test" concerning preemption and claimed, "I'll never give a veto to any country over our security. [T]he President always has the right, and always has had the right for preemptive strike."
Yet last year in the Boston Globe, Kerry claimed that the Bush administration "relies unwisely on the threat of military preemption against terrorist organizations."
Kerry cannot decide which side to take concerning the importance of capturing Saddam Hussein. At the debate, he described it as a "colossal error of judgment." Last December, however, he praised the capture.
"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president," Kerry said.
At the debate, Kerry lamented about the war's cost: "$200 billion, that could have been used for health care, for schools, for construction, for prescription drugs for seniors, and it's in Iraq".
Last August on "Meet the Press", Kerry's stance concerning funding the effort was in stark contrast.
"I think we should increase it [by] whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win," Kerry said.
Regarding Kerry's opinion of nations involved in the coalition in Iraq, the senator said at the debate, "I have nothing but respect for the British, Tony Blair, and for what they've been willing to do."
This is in stark contrast to Kerry's response in March on CNN's "American Morning," where he dismissed the coalition partners.
"The fact is that those countries are really window dressing to the greatest degree," Kerry said. "And they weren't there in the beginning when we went in, and they're not carrying the cost of this war."
Kerry's stated at the debate, "You don't send troops to war without the body armor that they need."
His story was different last fall.
"I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves," Kerry said. "We're not going to cut and run and not do the job."
In arguably Kerry's most noticeable flop, Kerry then voted against S. 1689, which passed 87-12. This bill contained the provisions to supply troops in Iraq and Afghanistan with ammunition and body armor.
His position on this topic has flip-flopped at least eight times.
September 2003: "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops. [T]hat's irresponsible."
March, 2004: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
July: I'm proud to say that John [Edwards] joined me in voting against that $87 billion when we knew the policy had to be changed."
Three days later: He said his vote was "complicated".
One week later: Kerry emphasizes his vote for the war and against funding was "not a flip-flop".
September: Kerry defended his vote against funding, claiming "it was irresponsible to give [President Bush] a blank check that gave $20 billion that was going to go ... to Halliburton."
One week later: "I'm glad I voted against it."
One week later: "It was a protest. Sometimes you have to stand up and be counted, and that's what I did."
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/october/1007_kerry_debate_flip_flops.shtml
Analysis: Kerry Debates Himself with Flip Flops
By Steve Roeder
Talon News
October 7, 2004
WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) repeatedly changed his position on key issues during the first presidential debate last week in Miami. With the second debate scheduled for Friday night in Missouri, President George W. Bush must focus multi-lateral responses to debate Kerry and his ever changing viewpoints.
Kerry's claims in last week's debate contradict earlier stances involving a variety of issues.
Kerry said last week the "reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction, not the removal Of Saddam Hussein."
However, in September 2002 on CBS's "Face the Nation," Kerry claimed, "It's what [Hussein] may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that -- that I think present the greatest danger."
Kerry also flopped concerning the issue of voting to authorize the use of force.
"Even knowing there was no connection with al Qaeda, he would still have done everything the same way. Those are [Bush's] words. Now, I would not."
Less than two months ago, Kerry maintained otherwise.
"Yes, I would have voted for the authority," Kerry said. "I believe it's the right authority for a president to have."
Kerry also asserted at the debate, "I've had one position, one consistent position, that Saddam Hussein was a threat," yet only one week earlier at NYU, he stated, "We now know that Iraq [posed] no imminent threat to our security."
Kerry also flipped his earlier view in the same debate of the Iraq invasion as being a "mistake." When asked by moderator Jim Lehrer, "Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?", Kerry changed his view and responded, "No, and they don't have to, providing we have the leadership that we put -- that I'm offering."
Just minutes earlier, Kerry described the Iraq War by saying, "We can't leave a failed Iraq. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake of judgment to go there and take the focus off of Osama bin Laden. It was."
Kerry also alluded to a "global test" concerning preemption and claimed, "I'll never give a veto to any country over our security. [T]he President always has the right, and always has had the right for preemptive strike."
Yet last year in the Boston Globe, Kerry claimed that the Bush administration "relies unwisely on the threat of military preemption against terrorist organizations."
Kerry cannot decide which side to take concerning the importance of capturing Saddam Hussein. At the debate, he described it as a "colossal error of judgment." Last December, however, he praised the capture.
"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president," Kerry said.
At the debate, Kerry lamented about the war's cost: "$200 billion, that could have been used for health care, for schools, for construction, for prescription drugs for seniors, and it's in Iraq".
Last August on "Meet the Press", Kerry's stance concerning funding the effort was in stark contrast.
"I think we should increase it [by] whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win," Kerry said.
Regarding Kerry's opinion of nations involved in the coalition in Iraq, the senator said at the debate, "I have nothing but respect for the British, Tony Blair, and for what they've been willing to do."
This is in stark contrast to Kerry's response in March on CNN's "American Morning," where he dismissed the coalition partners.
"The fact is that those countries are really window dressing to the greatest degree," Kerry said. "And they weren't there in the beginning when we went in, and they're not carrying the cost of this war."
Kerry's stated at the debate, "You don't send troops to war without the body armor that they need."
His story was different last fall.
"I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves," Kerry said. "We're not going to cut and run and not do the job."
In arguably Kerry's most noticeable flop, Kerry then voted against S. 1689, which passed 87-12. This bill contained the provisions to supply troops in Iraq and Afghanistan with ammunition and body armor.
His position on this topic has flip-flopped at least eight times.
September 2003: "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops. [T]hat's irresponsible."
March, 2004: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
July: I'm proud to say that John [Edwards] joined me in voting against that $87 billion when we knew the policy had to be changed."
Three days later: He said his vote was "complicated".
One week later: Kerry emphasizes his vote for the war and against funding was "not a flip-flop".
September: Kerry defended his vote against funding, claiming "it was irresponsible to give [President Bush] a blank check that gave $20 billion that was going to go ... to Halliburton."
One week later: "I'm glad I voted against it."
One week later: "It was a protest. Sometimes you have to stand up and be counted, and that's what I did."