PDA

View Full Version : Well, Kerry has answered my Iraq question (with a flip flop)


GWB
08-10-2004, 02:01 PM
Kerry Does a Flip in his Iraq Policy (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&ncid=696&e=4&u=/nm/20040810/pl_nm/campaign_bush_dc)

Here is the core of the story:

[b]The Bush campaign has been pressuring Kerry to say whether he would have still voted for the Iraq war given the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found. Kerry on Monday said he would have voted to give the president authorization to use force against Iraq "but I would have used that authority effectively."


Bush and his aides delighted in the response and said it showed further evidence of Kerry flip-flopping from an anti-war stance he held during the Democratic primary last winter.


"Now, almost two years after he voted for the war in Iraq, and almost 220 days after switching positions to declare himself the anti-war candidate, my opponent has found a new nuance," Bush said. "He now agrees it was the right decision to go into Iraq."


"After months of questioning my motives, and even my credibility, Senator Kerry now agrees with me that even though we have not found the stockpiles of weapons we all believed were there, knowing everything we know today, he would have voted to go into Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) from power. I want to thank Senator Kerry for clearing that up," Bush said.

cardcounter0
08-10-2004, 02:12 PM
Kerry said "He would have voted to give the president authorization to use force against Iraq 'but I would have used that authority effectively'."

Bush said Kerry said "He would have voted to go into Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power."

Anyone see a difference in these two statements?

Does "authorization to use force" only translate directly to 100,000+ ground troops? Can "force against Iraq" only mean "Remove Saddam Hussein from power"?

sweetjazz
08-10-2004, 02:24 PM
Funny, what I see from those quotes is John Kerry continuing to dodge how he would have handled Saddam Hussein (only saying that he would done have used the Congressional authority "effectively", whatever that means) and George Bush trying to turn that into support for his decision to invade Iraq (which is about the only thing Kerry has been clear on, that he did not agree with Bush's invasion while inspectors were still on the ground).

So which is worse -- a candidate who finally "clarifies" his position by continuing to say nothing of substance, or a candidate who morphs that non-statement into a statement of endorsement of his policy?

Maybe this is why I won't be voting for Tweedleedee or Tweedleedum this November.