flip/flop....flip/flop....flip/flop

Posted by: Bryan

flip/flop....flip/flop....flip/flop - 09/20/04 07:11 PM

Kerry says Saddam should not have been ousted<br><br>Of course, this is the same guy who said a few weeks ago that he would have still voted for the war if he had to do it over again. Keep talking, John...the hole's only getting deeper. <br><br>
Posted by: Pete

Re: flip/flop....flip/flop....flip/flop - 09/20/04 07:20 PM

OMG, I really can't defend this guy at ALL anymore...<br><br>Sean? <br><br>[color:red]C'mon...you know me.</font color=red>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: flip/flop....flip/flop....flip/flop - 09/20/04 07:30 PM

This is becoming just like Gore's alleged assertion that he invented the internet. What Kerry said, as reported by the International Herald Tribune, is as follows: [color:blue]Senator John Kerry said that he would have voted to give the president the authority to invade Iraq even if he had known all he does now about the apparent dearth of unconventional weapons or a close connection to Al Qaeda.</font color=blue> I suppose it's a nuance beyond understanding to make a distinction between granting the authority and actually doing it, but it shouldn't be that hard to understand. According to standard Christian theology, God grants us all the right to achieve salvation, but presumably few of us do (depends on your branch of Christianity what percentage gain salvation, of course). Is the difference clearer now? Or how about the Constitution granting us equal rights under the law--everyone acts on those rights in different ways.<br><br>Given the drumbeat to war that Mr. Bush and his folks sounded, and given the misinformation that Mr. Bush (presumably) was subject to and that Mr. Bush consequently spread across the nation and the world, of course any sensible person would have granted the President the authority to go to war. But granting the authority is not the same thing as saying that Mr. Bush should have gone to war. That is a very different idea indeed. In fact, I suspect that if almost any other human being had been president, the very idea of invading Iraq would not have come up as a more or less immediate response to9-11. It was an elective focus on Iraq, an elective decision to go to war, and an elective lack of foresight and planning for the aftermath of the war. Only Mr. Bush was obssessed enough to make the first election, duped (I hope) enough to make the second, and incompetent enough to make the third.<br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: flip/flop....flip/flop....flip/flop - 09/20/04 07:46 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> But granting the authority is not the same thing as saying that Mr. Bush should have gone to war. <p><hr></blockquote><p>That sentence is too long. In fact you spent 315 words explaining what Kerry means.<br><br>Too many words. Much easier to say "flip flop."<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: flip/flop....flip/flop....flip/flop - 09/20/04 08:06 PM

I'm beating my breast right now <br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: flip/flop....flip/flop....flip/flop - 09/20/04 08:52 PM

i am almost there with you pete . . . i need to find my best response lately and just link to it every time because it's too hard to type it out each time. perhaps i'll create a FAQ and really make it easy. i mean, this will come up many more times in the next 40 some days, so perhaps it'll be worth it. <br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: flip/flop....flip/flop....flip/flop - 09/20/04 09:44 PM

He voted for war because it was the popular thing to do and he want to be a popular guy. Don't give me this "Kerry is nuanced beyond your understanding" garbage.<br><br>This would be like telling my 4-year old...<br>"Nick, you have the authority to eat that delicious chocolate-chip cookie that you desperately want."<br>He eats it.<br>"Nick! I can't believe you ate that cookie. I never wanted you to eat that cookie."<br>My wife walk in.<br>"Dean, you let Nick eat that cookie!"<br>"No, I didn't, I just told him he could eat it, it was completely his decision and a decision I did not support from the beginning."<br>Right, I'm sure that would fly.<br><br>Everyone knew at the time that resolution was to go to war.<br>If Kerry was against going to war he should have voted against the resolution plain and simple.<br>Kerry thinks he can weasel out of now because the ABB crowd is willing to drink the "nuanced" flavored kool-aid or the "I really voted for the 'threat' of war" flavored kool-aid.<br><br>I mean, come on, listen to yourselves...<br>"Given the drumbeat to war that Mr. Bush and his folks sounded, and given the misinformation that Mr. Bush (presumably) was subject to and that Mr. Bush consequently spread across the nation and the world, of course any sensible person would have granted the President the authority to go to war."<br><br>From your own words there is a DRUMBEAT to WAR and a resolution is on the table authorizing such war and you are trying to actually tell me that I'm supposed to believe John Kerry was SURPRISED Bush exercised that right?<br><br>OK so now we have either...<br>1. A candidate who has no principals because he simply votes for what is popular and will backtrack later if popular sentiment changes or<br>2. A candidate that is so politically stupid he didn't realize that voting for the resolution essentially committed this nation to war.<br><br>Let's face it, this election is not between Bush and Kerry it's between Bush and not Bush. ANY of the democratic candidates that ran for the nomination would be pulling Kerry's numbers right now. Even Dennis Kucinich. (Well, maybe not Dennis but probably Sharpton. Ahhh, you get my point.)<br><br><br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"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." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003
Posted by: polymerase

Re: flip/flop....flip/flop....flip/flop - 09/20/04 09:56 PM

&[censored]. <br><br>The following is from a speech that Kerry gave in the Senate just before he voted for the resolution.<br><br>Text from the Speech John Kerry Made on the Senate Floor<br>October 9, 2002<br><br><br>Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.<br><br><br>In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.<br><br><br>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.<br><br><br>Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.<br><br><br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: flip/flop....flip/flop....flip/flop - 09/20/04 10:24 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Horsepucky. <p><hr></blockquote><p>To you maybe but not to me. Once that resolution passed any sensible person following the story knew the only way war was preventable was for Saddam to basically throw open the doors and any sensible person knew this wasn't going to happen. At the time I had hope he would because I didn't want to believe he was so misinformed or crazy that he thought he could refuse the UNs demands and not face consequences. But, then again after 11 years of doing so, why not.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.<p><hr></blockquote><p>We couldn't.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.<p><hr></blockquote><p>We did, we did, he didn't (again refer to my signature quote, that's some real "speakin out").<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community<p><hr></blockquote><p>We did.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>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.[quote]<br>We didn't act unilaterally so this section is moot.<br><br>[quote]Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.<p><hr></blockquote><p>No, who could consider that statement as "confusing"? <br>I support war if this but not this only after this then before the other is exhausted. Crystal clear.<br><br>In any event we did exhaust those other options so he must have supported "support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force."<br><br>But, what this really is, is not a speech of passion about one's personal convictions but classic politico speak. Again Kerry is setting himself up to have it both ways.<br>Votes for a resolution then gives a speech that basically allows him to swing both ways depending on the outcome.<br><br>How about this...<br>Vote against the resolution then give the exact same speech saying that you will vote for a new resolution once the stated terms of the speech are met. i.e. After I feel ALL diplomatic avenues have been explored then I, John Kerry, will vote for a force resolution. Now, that would have shown some conviction.<br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"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." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003
Posted by: sean

Re: flip/flop....flip/flop....flip/flop - 09/20/04 10:40 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Once that resolution passed any sensible person following the story knew the only way war was preventable was for Saddam to basically throw open the doors and any sensible person knew this wasn't going to happen<p><hr></blockquote><p>i posted a link in the last 2 or 3 days from december before the war and saddam did throw open the doors. he even invited the CIA in, which was an addition to the weapons inspectors. the weapons inspectors were begging the US for better intelligence to tell them where to look for the WMD that we knew saddam had. the weapons inspectors showed up by surprise at one of saddams palaces and he let them in. this was an amazing time and it was all related to the vote that kerry made to give dubya the power to authorize the use of force. that vote worked for its intended purpose. i am still amazed that the vote was squandered and people even rally behind dubya for his catastrophic mistakes.<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
Posted by: polymerase

Re: flip/flop....flip/flop....flip/flop - 09/21/04 04:25 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> i am still amazed that the vote was squandered and people even rally behind dubya for his catastrophic mistakes. <p><hr></blockquote><p> You are not alone in your amazement. The silence and rejection which Bush will find at the UN today will show that the world is still amazed too. But today's UN speech will not be written to convince anyone at the UN unfortunately. It will be written to continue to rally the blind here so he can continue to stick with the "democracy in Iraq" fantasy until Nov 3 or so. Amazing. Amazingly sad.<br><br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener