I saw John Kerry on the Daily show with John Stewart- he should use this in a campaign commercial

He was asked straight up "John Kerry, are you a flip-flopper"

To John Kerry said "Sure, whateverm because, what does it mean? What is a compasionate conservative? It is a subjective political thing- it's politics-

And I have to agree- really, what is this "flip flopping"- is it making a different decision when the variables change?

He went on to say "What good is it when you make a wrong decision, but stick by it anyway? What good is being stubborn? Is it right to just keep making the wrong decision over and over just because you want to be decisive?

Man- great appearance!

I watched the video as well and I think Eeyore's analysis is dead on. Its consistent going as far back to his vote against the war resolution in 1991. He agreed with removing Saddam but not the timing (I was glad to see that clip as I had not seen an explanation of why he voted against it). Frankly, I'm beginning to understand better why he said that he would still have voted for authorization knowing what he knows now. It keeps his stance on the general threat that Saddam posed (which I happen to agree with, he needed to be dealt with, just not now) consistent but correctly criticises the timing, the lack of planning, and the execution in the aftermath. And the flipper music was in incredibly poor taste for a video being promoted on our sitting President's re-election website.

Doc

Kerry is NO BETTER than ALL those other leaders...

John F. Kennedy
Bobby Kennedy
Jesse Jackson
Ted Kennedy
John Kerry
Garry Hart

that ALL cheated on their wives and lied about it...
Cheated us and lied to us about it...

That's not a good topic for a Republican to touch, since they have enough skeletons in their closet as well - starting with Bob Livingston and ending with republican icon du jour Rudy Giuliani.
At least Democrats never position themselves as "Party of Preservation of Family Values".

Fair enough, at least you watched the video. However, I think the question it does raise is the timing of the Kerry "shift" as you call it. It seems to coincide with the emergence of Howard Dean and his anti-Iraq postion as a front-runner in the Democratic primaries. It is perfectly reasonable to question what new information caused Kerry's "shift". Was it the poll numbers?

Ok, I guess many people don't remember the speech I posted here months ago that proves Kerry was no flip-flop on the Iraq war issue. So I'll post it again:

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/upload...kerry-iraq.html

Its the speech he gave right before he voted for the threat of the war.

Don't believe this one?

Then check out this one: It's one he gave right before the first strike in Iraq.

http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.ph...hrase=&contain=

Viewing these and others one can come to a conclusion there was no flip-flop. Only that Kerry doesn't view the whole Iraq situation as black and white in a simplistic way.

And the whole "I actually voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it" is just a stupid sound byte. No one ever plays what was said afterwards which I'm sure explained his statement.

I also posted more information about his "so-called" flip flops here if anyone would like to read:

http://forum.johnkerry.com/index.php?showtopic=65872

Alright, my turn to take a stab at this. It seems to me that Kerry is indeed flip-flopping when it comes to foreign policy. If he would just take a reasonable position and stick with it he would be nearly guaranteed my vote.

So could some one clear this up?

Kerry stands by his vote to authorize war in Iraq

Contrast that with these statements from just a month later...


Bush of course noted this bit

Bush and his rival clash repeatedly on Iraq war

So, umm...
Congress should give Bush the authority to lead the nation into a war that is wrong?

Right...

He agreed to Congressional authorization to allow the executive to form policy on Iraq.
He then disagreed with the way the executive branch applied that power to Iraq.

This is the flip flop. It works like this:
I am going to give you a gun and say, "do whatever you need to with the gun."
You take the gun and clean it.
I then say, I disagree with you cleaning the gun.
This is what is called 'indian giving' or in Kerry's case, filp flopping.

If you notice Kerry advocted as early as 2002, that he would have done exactly what bush did in Iraq.

These are not flip-flops and I think it is downright un-presidential to have a campaign web site with attack videos. I think using the flipper theme song is childish and again, un-presidential.

There is no attack in the DOCUMNETARY. The DOCUMENTARY uses Kerry's own words to describe how he filp flops. And if you don't think it is a DOCUMENTARY on Kerry flip flopping, then it can't be an attack ad. You either agree with Kerry's mood change in the DOCUMENTARY or you don't. There is no attack when you uses someones words to describe their positions on key political issues.

Just because you repeat something with resolve and determination does not make it true.

What makes it true, is the countless examples in one DOCUMENTARY that shows Kerry's own flip flop from his own words.

yehoshua,

It's more like this example.

I'm going to give you a gun, but to only be fired if the world agrees to this possible threat. You tell me you will ask the world and only use this gun if there are no other options left.

But then you take this gun and choose to use it even though you can't collect full world support like you stated you would.

So, in a sense it was Bush who flip-flopped here. Telling Congress he would convince UN and go into Iraq as a "true" coalition, but then backing out from the vote because he couldn't collect the vote majority. Sure, the administration likes to blame France for its veto threat, but also stated they would go ahead and let the vote run ignoring the veto making it majority rules. But, after the position became clear majority was not on his side he chose to use this gun without full support.

Kerry would be flip-flopping if he DIDN'T speak out against Bush's war actions like he stated in his speech to Congress.

I'm going to give you a gun, but to only be fired if the world agrees to this possible threat. You tell me you will ask the world and only use this gun if there are no other options left.

POINT TO ME, where in the Bill Kerry signed it decrees that president is to only use military force when he has the world support.

Telling Congress he would convince UN and go into Iraq as a "true" coalition, but then backing out from the vote because he couldn't collect the vote majority.Sure, the administration likes to blame France for its veto threat, but also stated they would go ahead and let the vote run ignoring the veto making it majority rules. But, after the position became clear majority was not on his side he chose to use this gun without full support.

Umm, he couldn't get Frances vote. In the UN, France, UK, Russia, and the USA have ultimate say. It only takes one country to veto a vote. The President had the majority of the UN Security Councils, but France threaten the veto. WHY? Because France was violating the resolutions put on Iraq after the Persian Gulf War. France violated the food for oil. Instead of giving the Iraq people food, France gave Saddam money. That is why there was a veto.

Regardless of the size of the coalition Kerry still switched positions in a matter of a month, his latest take on the war is that we should never have gone, totally different form his suggestion that the sole problem was "how" we went.

A plain inconsistency.

I really don't see why people are seizing on this Kerry flip-flopped because of his stance on Iraq so much. I personally prefer to have a leader in place that isn't afraid to change their position based on new information or further analysis. I don't want someone that is so rigid in their position that they won't change it simply because they would have to admit that at one point they were wrong.

It may or may not surprise you to learn that at one point I supported the Iraq war, but once I actually started digging in to it I changed my position. I would like to think that most of the people here on AD hold themselves the same intellectual standards.

Now clearly this makes for an excellent soundbite and the partisan claws come out with all the Republicans (and of course none of them would ever admit Bush was wrong about anything anyway) saying it was politically motivated.

Maybe it was and maybe it wasn't and maybe it was something in between, I for one don't particularly care. We have one candidate who has lead us down the wrong path and continues to do so daily and we have another that is proposing a different way. I'll take what is behind door number 2 thank you very much. If it turns out my trust was misplaced 4 years from now, I'll be the first person to own up to it.

I would agree if that was the case here, the fact in no new info came out between August and Semptember that Kerry has pointed to to explain his change in stance. It is one this to have a candidate that isn't stuborrn...

..another to have a president who changes his postion based on how the wind is blowing.


...or two different ways at once.

I personally prefer to have a leader in place that isn't afraid to change their
position based on new information or further analysis.

I agree, but Kerry didn't change based upon further analysis. Kerry changed way before Saddam was found and the discussion of lack of WMD. Kerry changed because he was losing the the Democratic Primaries to Howard Dean. I guess if further analysis means 'what is best for the party' then Kerry changed based upon new information

It may or may not surprise you to learn that at one point I supported the Iraq war, but once I actually started digging in to it I changed my position. I would like to think that [i]most of the people here on AD hold themselves the same intellectual standards.[/I]

And when did you change? When Kerry changed?

I see you ignored the other part of my post and only picked up on the generalization and philosophy. I stated pretty clearly that I don't care if that's what he did or not and I'm sure that politics played in. The point for me anyway, is that he proposes to do things in a way I agree with.

All of this, but you said this 6 months ago stuff is pure politics and lacks substance if you actually care about the issues. I'll play attack politics right along with the next guy, but when you want to look at the issues you'll realize things like this aren't important.

I wonder how you would respond if I started up a topic about George W. Bush's flip-flops, would you give the same answer I just gave or would you admit that he changed his stance and therefore isn't trustworthy?

So I want to make sure, what you're saying is he did totally switch his position in Iraq in a matter on one month (between August and September of this year), but you don't care?

That's fair enough, I do have a problem with a candidate who switches position on a major foreign policy matter for what are likely purely political reasons.

...but to the topic of this thread, let it be said no more that charges of Kerry being a flip-flopper are not true

...he is.

I have to ask this question:

What's the point of putting up valuable information and full speeches ( not freaking soundbytes ) if the people on this forum cannot take the time to read them?

Based on his own speeches he gave before, during, and after the war it played out like this:

1. Wanted the UN to get the those inspectors back in Iraq to access the threat of the WMDs from Saddam.

2. Gave the president war powers by voting yes IF and ONLY if the UN agreed the threat was emminent. And we can poke fun at the UN all we want, but the facts are correct, there WAS reason for pause and more time for the inspectors!

3. Became angry at Bush when he chose to ignore what others in the UN were saying about more time ( remember UNMOVIC, not UNSCOM ( from 1998 ) only had 3 months. ) and pushed for a resolution authorizing war in Iraq.

4. Became appalled and saddened that Bush yanked the resolution and decided to build a coalition of "names" with 90%+ being US forces, but also stated "we are where are" and tried to show support hoping the Administration was right and there are indeed stockpiles of WMDs. I guess you could call this a flip, but it was more of a hope we as a nation didn't flub up entirely because of the gung ho not collecting the facts before charging in attitude.

5. As more and more evidence came forth that there indeed were no WMDs in Iraq ( from the Carnegie Report to David Kay's Testimony ) he started to speak out as, according to his speech before the vote, he said he would. Dean spoke out WAAY before this.

So I don't really see someone as flip-flopper on this but a more of a "he knew there might of been a threat and wanted it accessed, but didn't want to charge in like a brute without knowing all the facts."

And no matter how you look at it, guaging by the facts of today Saddam was actaully fully cooperating in those 3 months. No inspectors were blocked anywhere and whatever they asked for they got, except for that confession the US wanted stating "we have WMDs and we are lying to you."

What? Maybe this is what came from him in speeches, but what counts (since he was a senator) is the legislation he signed in support. He gave Bush authorization to go to war, this did not depend on what the UN thought. He can rationalize all he wants, but his vote is on paper.

This is not the topic for this, but I will point you to one because this statement is absolutely false and that is very important when it comes to knowing what really lead to this war.
Here's the topic:
Iraq's "Cooperation"
Iraq never cooperated fully.

If going from...

Kerry stands by his vote to authorize war in Iraq
to...

Bush and his rival clash repeatedly on Iraq war
Isn't a flip-flop...

Ok, going to try this again, let's try and actually put this whole Iraq war vote in perspective shall we?

Here is what Bush said in 2002 before he sent the resolution in question to congress.

You should notice that he used the words "keep the peace" twice. Now some of you may have a funny definition of keeping the peace, but keeping the peace generally doesn't mean "invade" in my book.

Bush said he wanted the authorization to use force so that he'd have a strong bargaining chip at the United Nations--and that the U.N. would get new inspectors in, and that, maybe, this would lead to Saddam disarming without a war. That is why John Kerry made the following statement:


And then we got new tough inspections in concert with our allies, and Bush decided to invade anyway despite the fact that the inspections weren't done. I think that puts things in a little bit different perspective.

If I may, the flip-flop I pointed out has nothing to do with Kerry's original reason to vote for war. I would also point out that the Senator knows full well that the only thing that counts with legislation is what is printed on the paper.

He did not sign his support conditionally, it was a "yea" or "nay" question. If
he didn't get that, he's too clumsy with politics to handle heading the executive.

That of course was a side note, my post above still stands.

Is John Kerry the [B]Flip/Flopper he is made out to be?[/B]

Yep .

What issues has he Flip/Flopped on, sharpley, and with no apparent reason?

That can be difficult to determine. What might not seem apparent or reasonable to me might be completely reasonable and apparent to you. I wish the question was more black and white for the purposes of remaining out of silly arguments about what is reasonable and apparent, but it's not so please forgive me if the examples I site are not as specifically reasonable and apparent to anyone else as they are to me.

Without further adue:

The Patriot Act

John Kerry has publicly spoken about the Patriot Act for the last year. Speaking on the subject he has claimed that the Patriot Act has taken away Constitutional Rights from Americans, and implied that it explicitly hands over to government the power to take away such rights as First Amendment Free Speech, and Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure protections.

Alrighty then. In as much as I disagree with John Kerry on that, he nevertheless did just what I would have done to integrate intelligence within National Security systems set up in The US, and voted FOR The Patriot Act in the Senate.

Israeli/Palestinain conflict and relations

In October of 2003 speaking in Michigan to a group of Arab-Americans Kerry specifically called the wall erected in Israel to secure it's border "a barrier to peace".

However, not more than a few months later John Kerry released an official campaign memo clarifying his actual position on that wall and that memo read exactly: ""John Kerry supports the construction of Israel's security fence to stop terrorists from entering Israel. The security fence is a legitimate act of self-defense..." .

Now hold the press. Before we start saying that the wall is a barrier to peace, but is essential in John Kerry's mind to the securing and defending of Israel, this to me is clearly a Flip/Flop. While one might argue this point I think it is a tasteless blatant attempt to appeal to two different sides on the same subject, which is if not Flip/Flopping, just plain cowardly in my opinion.

The War in Iraq

I don't even know where to start on this one. John Kerry has Flipped and Flopped all around so much here that it's impossible to pretend he hasn't.

Everyone can sight a hundred examples of this and each one could be put into different contexts such as, well he agreed with the war, but Felt it was handled poorly, as John Kerry has stated. But I have to face the facts and so does john Kerry.

Over the last week I have heard him say in at least 3 different speeches that "Iraq was the WRONG war at the WRONG time".

Yet he voted for the war, at that time which he said was wrong. And then that wouldn't be so bad, but he won't say that HE made a mistake in voting for the war, only in being misled by George W Bush. Which also might find some level credence within me if it wasn't apparent that John Kerry was on the Senate intelligence comittee and has access to more information than you or I to that sort of crucial material that would have kept him from being "misled" by George W Bush.

The seconds after 9/11

This isn't a Flip/Flop necessarily, but it's a blatant "I would've, but didn't". Which I guess isn't what he's being called here, but it speaks to his character.

John Kerry has been critical of George W Bush's performance in the seconds after 9/11, and I personally disagree with him on whether or not President Bush should've ran outta the room in a panic, but I do want to look at what he said on NBC's Meet The Press a month after the attack. Kerry said that he sat there watching the second plane hit the building and was stunned. He then went on to say that he "sat there stunned until he watched the first Tower begin to collapse" at which point he was made to leave the building due to security risks.

It seems to me that when he realized it was a terrorist attack (ie after the second plane hit like everbody else) he might have started to discuss National Security with the others in the room who were meeting there to have a National Security Meeting in the first place. But he said that he sat there stunned, for what was as best as I can tell....45 minutes, give or take a few. It doesn't sound to me like he was rushing off to find a telephone both in order change suits and save America.

Here's a funny one (aren't they all)......

The SUV Owners For Truth

During the Democratic primaries, Kerry went to Michigan and bragged to the Detroit News: "We have some SUVs. We have a Jeep. We have a couple of Chrysler minivans. We have a PT Cruiser up in Boston. I have an old Dodge 600 that I keep in the Senate. ... We also have a Chevy, a big Suburban."

Then a few months after Kerry won the Michigan primary in February, he told a group of environmentalists: "I don't own an SUV." When pressed on the reasonable and apparent contradiction, Kerry explained: "The family has it. I don't have it." As I believe Ann Coulter puts it in other words; her house is his for the mortgaging, but his cars are not.

Whereas I really could care less whether or not he owns an SUV, I think it would behoove Senator Kerry to be less ambiguous on the matter, and in other affairs relating to his stances.

Vietnam, (yeah I'm bringin it up, but only because he did first).

John Kerry who shortly after the war met with Communist leaders including Northern Vietnamese leaders in france after the war (which in my opinion constitutes treason) came home to bad mouth our troops and admitted to committing and witnessing atrocities in Vietnam.

But now claims to be a "War Hero". He claims his service was heroic and dutiful, but won't say whether or not those claims he made 30 years ago were true or not. If they were not, then he could stand as a hero, provided he earned his Purple Hearts and hadn't tarnished the reputations of hundreds of thousands of actual heroes. But we won't know, because he won't admit he was wrong.

Opposingly, if the claims were true, then he wasn't actually a war hero like he claims and this would be Flip/Flopping. He either is or is not a war hero, and if he was he wouldn't have to claim he was. He also probably wouldn't have his picture up in a Ho Chi Minh (what used to be Saigon) City Museum in a section dedicated to Great Foriegn Leaders Who Helped Fight Off Americans, shaking hands with North Vietnamese leaders after the war.

There are these incidents, there are the other incidents that others have sited and there are more, and more, and more that can be found in various places.

What we're looking at here is not merely a series of spun issues, but a clear lifestyle of politicking that brings into question serious doubts about Senator Kerry's ability to lead America as an unwaivering leader who won't be seen as swaying by other world leaders, terrorists, citizens who need strength in leadership during hard times.

... and no surprise folks he's doing it again.

Sen. John Kerry talks to Don Imus
Now here we are back at the August position. The president should have had the authority to go to war, he just need to wait longer for allies.

So they could all wage "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time" together?

Some criticism of Kerry is false, but the man flip-flops, that is readily apparent.

Saying things over and over again may win votes but it doesn't make something readily apparent.

Voting for authorization to go to war and giving the President the big stick to use with Hussein and the UN is one way to make things move diplomatically.

Bush was given the power of our modern commander in chief, he said war would be used as a last option and then it was revealed that it was the last option because it was the only option being considered.

I don't agree that voting to authorize the use of force is the same thing as voting to declare war on Saddam HUssein.

Sure, Kerry probably staked out the safest political position with his vote, but that doesn't mean that he has to agree with the way Bush used that force.

Sure, using the Dean line, Wrong war wrong time wrong place is strong rhetoric, but that doesn't mean that the bush policy on this was in the best interests in the nation.

I do not see an obvious flip-flop, and I have seen this position repeated several times on this thread. You can restate it again, but that won't make it more true.

Imus this week




Right. Madeline Albright and Richard Holbrooke and Wesley Clark would have had the French and Germans pony up more troops and do things more equitably. The Germans would have really sent troops if only smooth-talking John Kerry was president, and not that cowboy Bush. OK. I'm buying.
Seriously - you bet we might have? Oh, sorry, you bet we might have fought the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, but we would have had French and Germans there with us. Seriously.

Edited to add - apologies for my above editorializing. Letting Kerry speak for himself is more convincing.
KERRY PLAYS THE HAWK


flip flops

After seventy-five posts to this thread, I really have to ask: Is anyone interested in the issues any more?

Of course Kerry isn't the "flip-flopper" he's made out to be. He's no more a "flip-flopper" than George W Bush or just about any other politician one would care to name. This whole Republican campaign tactic is a straw man. It is exactly the same as the stupid "Gore is a liar" tactic used in 2000. As we all know by now, compared to George W Bush, Al Gore was a rank amateur when it comes to lying.

This entire tactic is a desperate measure by a party which has no issues on which it can run - and a candidate with nothing whatsoever to distinguish him. Bush can't run on his record, so the focus must shift to the opponent - exactly as it did in 2000.

Choosing this year's mindless chant - "He's a flip-flopper" rather than "He's a liar" - was utterly random. One could choose any unspecified charge and, with a compliant media, find something in anyone's history to support it. The Republican noise machine could just as easily have decided to go with "He's stubborn and intractable" and come up with just as much spurious evidence to support the claim. And you would find exactly the same lemmings falling over themselves to "demonstrate" how Kerry's positions are so out of touch because they're so immutable. Ridiculous.

Has John Kerry changed any of his positions over the years? Sure. Who hasn't? Many people have changed their positions on, say, the Iraqi campaign over the course of days. The fact that Kerry has been willing and able to change his mind and some of his positions over the course of thirty-odd years of public life demonstrates one thing: he's not psychotic. Do we need "steady leadership in times of change"? Hell, no. We need someone who can, on occasion, adapt to change - someone who is not a brainless ideologue who is willing to swear that black is white rather than acknowledge the real world. Does this make John Kerry a "flip-flopper"? Only if you're interested in idiotic games rather than politics in the real world.

THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE. THIS IS SIDE SHOW. And everyone who enters into this "debate" is part of lowering the tone of American political discourse. It's embarrassing.

There are issues - real issues - in this election, but led by the Republican propagandists, no one is discussing them. The Democrats, I should add, aren't helping much by allowing themselves to be drawn into the whole thing.

Kerry's positions are laid out very clearly at this web site. They are articulated very clearly in his campaign speeches. They have not varied since his campaign for the presidency began (though, should he be elected, I hope to God he'd be willing to moderate them as events over take us all - unlike his opponent). Is the media covering that? Are people discussing it? Are they considering it when they think about casting their votes? Nope. The Republicans may well succeed again in having an election run entirely on insult, innuendo, and fiction, rather than a single substantive issue. And those who contribute to "debates" such as this one - on both sides - are making it happen.

If anyone wants to discuss a real issue, you'll find me in another thread.

This campaign has become nothing more then he is a liar, no he is a lair. However, what presidential campaign in the last near 20 years that I have been able to vote has not been more about "vote for me because the other guy is a jerk"?

Americans allow this because they buy into the notation that a vote for anyone other then a Democrat or a Republican is a wasted vote. But, when Perot ran the high percentage he received at the polls resulted in all sorts of political changes. He used charts and diagrams to support his positions. It was a rare thing to see in politics back then. To this day it is rare to see a politician in congress without a graph or other props. A vote for an alternative candidate is a vote for political change. Even when that candidate looses, you can still see change in politics as a result of their candidacy.



I agree that someone can grow and/or learn and as a result change their positions on issues. I am an example of that. My problem with Senator Kerry is that he does not make the attempt to tell us why. I would like to know WHY he choose to support NAFTA and now fights outsourcing for example. There could easily be a reasonable answer. Maybe something as simple as the fact as no one envisioned outsourcing at the Time of NAFTA.

Senator Kerry is not campaigning on his record either. He has a 19 year record in the Senate. Yet he does not bring that into his campaign. I have to ask Why.



I went to the book store to purchase the book put out by Senators Kerry and Edwards, their plan for America. I decided to read a bit of it before I purchased the book. I read through the section on Education. There were several Ideas I could support in there, if I knew HOW they would be achieved. The book failed to discuss the HOW. What kind of "plan" does not discuss HOW it will be implemented, paid for or enforced?

As it stands, I don't trust Senator Kerry because he has not addressed the WHYs when it comes to position changes he has made over the years or the HOWs when it comes to how he will implement and pay for his various "plans".

I don't trust Bush either. I don't trust the Democrats or Republicans to do anything for anyone other then themselves. A good portion of America feels the same. If you want our trust then tell us your plans and positions IN DETAIL. And don't leave out how you would pay for them.

Well, I think there were serious issues being discussed in the last election. On one side there was protecting social security, instituting tax cuts aimed at the middle class, maintaining the budget surplus, instituting campaign finance reform, preserving and revitalizing public schools, ensuring electronic privacy, promoting urban renewal, liberalizing international trade, and following through on the anti-terrorist activities of Clinton and Clarke; on the other side, there was determinig whether or not a character in Love Story had been based on the opponent. It's just a matter of what catches the media and public attention.

It's exactly the same thing now. You mention two issues - education and NAFTA - which are the sort of thing whch the media should be covering and the electorate debating. If Kerry's position on NAFTA has changed, we should be examing the issue, not the mere fact that there has been a change.


Exactly, OS. Neither candidate is telling us WHY they have the platforms which they have and neither is telling us HOW they're going to pay for them - the twelve new (and outrageously expensive) programs which Bush introduced during his acceptance speech, for example. And this is the sort of thing we should be debating - not the whole charade with which the Republican party wants to distract us. Sadly, this is not the place to address any of the above. This thread might as well be debating which candidate has better taste in neckties. You do seem to be taking this election seriously, OS - as am I. Meet you in a real thread?

I just hope that, if this debate continues to dominate the campaign, people can bring themselves to abandon the infantile term "flip-flopping". I know it may be easier for Bush himself to grasp, but can we not at least use a grown-up word like vacillation or indecision or even opportunism (all of which can be implied by the rather nebulous nursery word so favored by Fox News)? We are discussing the presidency of the United States, for God's sake, not who's going to be hall monitor.

After saying a little over a month ago that he would have still voted for authorization for the president to go into iraq, Kerry takes a new position on Iraq.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...olitics_of_iraq


Come on people. It is obvious that Kerry hasnt made a clear position on many issues. This isnt partisan babble or anything like that. Its fact that he just hasnt chosen a position and stuck to it and we are just weeks away from the election.

Come on, leder, this is not a change in Kerry's position in the least. He has been consistent about his vote on S.J.Res. 45 (the authorization of the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq) ever since he cast it. He has not once said he would have voted any other way. Similarly, he has been absolutely consistent in his opinion regarding the decision to actually launch the "attack of opportunity" on March 20, 2003. Since days before the invasion was launched until late this afternoon, John Kerry has opposed that invasion. His position on the authorization of the use of force and on the timing of and reasoning behind the actual invasion itself have not wavered once in nearly two years.

Be honest for a moment here, leder: if you had not first heard it on Fox News, would it ever have occurred to you that John Kerry was a "flip-flopper"? If this were not how the Republican Party had been spinning Kerry's position, would you have independently come to this conclusion?

Think for a moment: the Bush campaign could just as easily - and with exactly the same amount of evidence (in fact, using the identical evidence) - have been saying for the past several months, "Our administration has been adapting to change during the course of this conflict. As circumstances in Iraq have evolved, as the strategies of the insurgents have changed, we have had the flexibility to change with them - to adapt our strategy to the ongoing situation. John Kerry, on the other hand, has been adamant, unwavering in his position on this conflict. Which do we want? A Commander-in-Chief who can react to the situation and adjust his strategy accordingly, as Bush has done, or a man who has had a single thought - 'this invasion is wrong' - and has stuck with it in blind stubbornness ever since this conflict began?"

If that were the tactic the Republican Party had chosen - as they could so easily have done - would you now be saying, "But they're wrong! Kerry isn't stubborn - why he's been just as adaptable as Bush!" - or would you be toeing the alternate party line and quoting "news" items which demonstrate just how stubborn Kerry really is?

Kerry has said two things all along: 1. The president should have had the authority to use force in Iraq if necessary (I happen to disagree with Kerry's position, but that's another story). 2. March 2003 was the wrong time to exercise that authority (that I go along with). Look at what you're citing here. Bush is saying, in effect, "Hey - Kerry is saying exactly the same thing he's been saying all along! Just last month he said that the president should have had the authority to use force in Iraq, but that March 2003 was the wrong time to exercise that authority. Today, he's saying that the president should have had the authority to use force in Iraq, but that March 2003 was the wrong time to exercise that authority. How dare he!" All he's doing here is leaving half of the statement out each time: "Last month he said that the president should have had the authority to use force in Iraq - today, he's saying that March 2003 was the wrong time to exercise that authority. How dare he!" You're an intelligent fellow, leder - I'm amazed you can't see through this.

This is what I mean by saying this is not a real issue - and never has been. It is nothing more than the double-talk of a mountebank. Unfortunately, far too many seem to be falling for these simplistic tricks rather than examining the facts and thinking for themselves.

Go on playing three-card monte if being taken in amuses you, leder - but know that you are being conned.

Look, i have absolutely no doubt that the Repubs are pushing the 'Kerry is a flip-flopper' issue. But, i am also quite certain that Kerry remains unclear on a number of positions over the past couple of months. If Kerry voted to authorize force...ok i respect that. If he then says he is against the wway the war is being handled...ok i respect that as well because that is fair game. But if he is consistently going back and forth between two points on Iraq (and not only Iraq), it is hard to discern a clear stance.

I believe that the argument that Kerry voted only to give Bush the 'authority' to go to war is just a game of rhetoric and semantics. Kerry knew what Bush was going to do, the rest of Congress knew what Bush was going to do, and the people knew what Bush was going to do. Just because it was not a formal declaration of war doesnt mean anything because in the 200+ year history of the USA...with over 220+ conflicts ever...war has been declared a total of 6 times.

Here is a snippet of what Kerry's speech to congress was regarding his vote:



I completely and utterly agree with what John Kerry said. He was correct in my mind and i support it. But now he is saying that the war was the wrong place at the wrong time. I dont understand that. If he makes such a good and believable speech telling us why Saddam is a menace to the world, why would he not stand by that?

There are some issues that i am concerned about and i dont know where Kerry stands...one such issue is the Patriot Act. There have been a number of times that Kerry has just said completely the opposite of what he said before. But hey, i understand. Times change, circumstances change, so the policy changes. Nothing is wrong with that. But it seems that Kerry is sacrificing his principles, which i firmly believe are just as noble as GW's, for votes. And i for one do not like that. Both candidates do it somewhat...but as Guiliani said at the RNC, "Kerry is making it the rule instead of the exception."

I am willing to concede most points you made Wertz, but i just see too many inconsistencies. Yes, i believe that without foxnews, questions would still be raised about his switching of positions.

Just to add yet another position change from Kerry:

Kerry Says He Wouldn't Have Ousted Saddam

This is not long after Kerry said he would have voted for force even after knowing what we do today.

Kerry flips around more than a live fish on hot concrete.

Singing the flip flop song does not make it incontrovertable truth.


Kerry Says He Wouldn't Have Ousted Saddam

This to me clarifies Kerry's position and is not a flip-flop. He voted to give the president the authority to wage war if necessary.

If we knew that Iraq did not have WMDs and did not serve as a haven for Al Qaeda before we entered the war could you justify being led into war by a president with that foreknowledge? If not, then isn't it fair to say that it is regrettable that this war was waged? Some of these realities may have come to light if the war was enetered or not entered in a more deliberate manner.

I am sure the koolaid tastes good, but how long are you going to keep defending this man?

Kerry has changed positions on numerous issues throughout the past year. From ownership of SUVs to the war itself. It is now starting to reflect in a majority of polls. Unless you want to put on the blinders and ignore them as well.

Does despising Bush that much make you want to support a man as phoney as Kerry?

Alright, now you guys and gals have gone and dunnit! You've exposed my Political Party - It is the No Politico Party!

Wertz, I hope you don't mind my 'capsulization' of your very eloquent words. They speak volumes as to how elections are decided. What a pity those "non-issues" become the bellweather for a campaign.

Dan Rather's belief in forged documents from an unreliable source is ABSOLUTELY no different than our government's being fooled by "intelligence" the Brits had already dismissed as unsubstantiated and highly suspect over WMD's.

This behavior and fingerpointing is what I hate about ALL politicians.

Why don't we cut to the chase and FOLLOW the MONEY? THAT is the answer to political maneuvers and motives and it always has been.

Going from the TAXATION without representation cries (money) of the colonists. through Lincloln who considered "Negroes inferior" but emanicapated them to wreak havoc with the South's textile industry that depended on more slaves to pick cotton (money), all the way to today's special interest groups, politicians live by two rules.

As I've said before:

Rule # 1 - Do whatever it takes to get elected.

Rule # 2 - Never forget Rule # 1.

Money is the key to being/staying elected. The power of a political office attracts the money.

Wertz and others have corrected distilled this campaign to its lowest common denominator - power. Power creates money. Money re-elects. The hen house needs a guard. It must not be a fox. It has to be a dog. The dog needs a master. It was intended in such a scenario for the master to be the people - not corporate givers and PACS. There should never be party control of both houses of congress without a rule that the President must be a member of the minority party. PAC members and their lobbyists should be sent to fight the Iraq War and should be the first to go to ANY war.

The judicial system should be chosen by the electorate with the first judgeship going to the winning party and the second to the losing party and so on.

The media can be as big as it wants and its members come from any political persuasion but it should be licensed in a way similar to the way jurists are chosen in the example. 527's should go the way of dinosaurs. Political advertising by candidates on TV, Radio and in other media should be free or paid for by an exemption on income taxes. Ads should be limited in quantity - not content. Ads should be back to back in sequence and alternating in opening vs. closing.

Civil law suits should be funded by the losers of the litigation.

If we keep the death penalty, it should also apply to those who are responsible for wrongful convictions and executions. (Humor - but they should be jailed at the least.) Wrongfully convicted innocent criminals should be pardoned and their prosecutors and evidence gatherers jailed for some period of time.

If abortion or stem cell research is banned, so should in-vitro fertilization find a similar fate.

Petty issues make a mockery of elections. Law suits against politicians are SELDOM followed to a conclusion. Let's get back to equal funding and get rid of PACS and let's divide corporate gifts between all candidates on a per election basis.

If Louisiana Pacific or Exxon or Pacific Bell wants legislation to soften environmental safeguards, then their contributions should be split among all candidates and they should be restricted to ONE lobbyist per state and ONE for the capital with no exceptions. Lobbyists should be prohibited from attending fundraisers and from giving money (soft or hard) to candidates or to their campaigns.

SENATORS and REPRESENTATIVES used to be the LOBBYISTS for their section of the country. Sometimes going BACKWARDS is good.

Moderators, please feel free to move this or PM me for me to post it under another topic.

I agree with what Wertz said a few days ago.

In fact, there was an article in this morning's Fort Worth Star Telegram by Thomas Fitzgerald of Knight Ridder News Service that indicates Kerry's position has been consistent on Iraq. Maybe Bush flip-flopped.



<SNIP>



<SNIP>



http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/9779483.htm?1c

what issues are there that Kerry can justifiably be called a flip flopper on in the sense that he has changed his position on an issue to argue both sides of a point when convenient or that he has made sharp changes for no good reason?

As Kerry being the flip flopper he is, he is now flip flopping on interviews or the lack there of:


Was Kerry afraid to answer Bob Woodward's questions back in August? Had he not decided his stance on Iraq? Or would he do nothing different? Either way, he agreed to the interview and then decided not to do the interview. That is a flip flop.

1. Kerry's advisors tentatively agreed to answer the questions, not Kerry himself.

2. Not answering questions for a particular journalist, even one of Woodward's stature, does not equal a flip flop on policy issues.

3. The Kerry camp's deciding not to answer Woodward's questionnaire, hardly rises to the level of the Bush administration blocking the release of the recent CIA report. No administration has ever been more egregious about secrecy and blocking release of information. And to think it comes from a president who claims to be such a staight shooter. Quite a flip flop.

Compare this story to the one in today's The washington Post and read the thread on the recently blocked CIA report.

LA Times

AD Blocked CIA Report Thread