Official verdict: White House misled world over Saddam

[AnitaPeterson]

Originally posted by: Aelius
Perhaps Bush can take a lesson from Khrushchev and use a good solid shoe.

Good ol' shoooe...yeaah... good ol' shooe...

(let's see if anyone 'gets' this reference)

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson

Originally posted by: Aelius
Perhaps Bush can take a lesson from Khrushchev and use a good solid shoe.

Good ol' shoooe...yeaah... good ol' shooe...

(let's see if anyone 'gets' this reference)

*giggle*

 

[conjur]

Interesting bit from a little over a year ago:

http://www.doublestandards.org/madsen1.html

 

[heartsurgeon]

Fox interview of Lee Hamilton (D), and Thomas Keen (?) of the 9/11 commission:

Kean: ?Were there contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq? Yes. Some of them are shadowy, but there?s no question they were there.?
Hamilton, two soundbites: ?I must say I have trouble understanding the flap over this. The Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that.?
?So it seems to me that the sharp differences that the press has drawn, the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me.?

NBC interview of Lee Hamilton:

?Lee Hamilton said today that he does not see much different between administration statements and the commission?s report.?

CNN interview/video:

Six hours later, in a report for NewsNight, Suzanne Malveaux gave five words to Hamilton. She began: ?The 9-11 Commission says it has no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with the September 11th attacks. During a cabinet meeting the President maintained that the administration never made that claim.?
Bush in cabinet room: ?This administration never said that the 9-11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.?
Lee Hamilton: ?We don?t disagree with that.?

from USA Today:

?Lee Hamilton, a former Indiana congressman who is the top Democrat on the commission, said he doesn't disagree with Cheney's assertions of bin Laden contacts with Iraq. 'I have trouble understanding the flap over this,' Hamilton said.
?A commission official said the panel did not intend for its conclusions to be interpreted as a denial of any contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq.

i applaud all you liberals for keeping this fiction alive, keep overplaying your hand...it's going to help Bush, not hurt him.

for you dingleberries that don't know who Lee Hamilton is..he is the Co-Chairman of the 9/11 commission, a lifelong democrat from indiana, former senator, former chairman(?) of the senate intelligence committee, and generally a well regarded individual by all political parties (not generally viewed as a rabid partisan)

 

[jackschmittusa]

heartsurgeon

Ah yes, the Bush platitude "contact = guilt by association". If you should ever treat a terrorist for a medical condition or have one for a neighbor, count on at least being held as a material witness. Your monetary assets will make you a flight risk so they will have to lock you up.

 

[heartsurgeon]

jackschmittusa

Lee Hamilton, a well respected DEMOCRAT on the 9/11 commission (Co-chairman i believe) statements are listed above.

The Republican Co-chairman of the 9/11 commission has stated to Wolf Blitzer on CNN, that the commission findings confirm what the Bush administration has stated.

i guess liberals don't really care what the facts are.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
jackschmittusa

Lee Hamilton, a well respected DEMOCRAT on the 9/11 commission (Co-chairman i believe) statements are listed above.

The Republican Co-chairman of the 9/11 commission has stated to Wolf Blitzer on CNN, that the commission findings confirm what the Bush administration has stated.

i guess liberals don't really care what the facts are.

I challenge you to prove that the commissions finding confirm what the Bush administration has stated.

The facts are that the Bush administration skewed intelligence to sell the war to the US public and waged a highly efficient propaganda campaign against the US public according to Goebbel's dictum " ?It [the spin] must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.?

Those few points of Goebbel's dictum in this case was:

1. Saddam
2. al-Qa'ida
3. WMD
4. Attack on the US
5. Put them all together indescriminately (=warmongering by selling fear)

Bush: "The liberation of Iraq removed... an ally of al-Qa'ida".

No. It removed one false ally but added who knows how many thousands true devotees. Good going Dubya.

Cheney: "There's overwhelming evidence... of a connection between al-Qa'ida and Iraq"

Evidence of talks maybe. But no evidence of cooperation. The Bushies are all talk and no evidence.

Rumsfeld: "Within a week, or a month, Saddam could give his WMD to al-Qa'ida"

Gee, heartsurgeon, have you stopped beating your wife yet? Spot the false dichitomy with Rummy's statement.

"You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." - President George W. Bush, September 2002.

Of course you can.

At the time of the invasion of Iraq fully 70 per cent of Americans believed Saddam himself, alone or with help, was responsible for 9/11. Nearly 50 per cent believed the attackers had been Iraqis. I wonder who gave them those ideas?

"In the period leading up to the war, President Bush frequently couched his remarks to be deliberately misleading on this topic without actually crossing over the line into what all would recognize as a lie. For instance, in his 2003 State of the Union, Bush claimed, ''Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda,?Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own." The theme of Saddam's training and funding of "al Qaeda?type organizations before, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations" was a constant feature of the president's speeches. Following a terrorist attack in Bali that left over 180 people dead, Bush insisted that Saddam planned to employ al-Qaida as his own "forward army" against the West. In a speech to the United Nations on Sept. 12, 2002, Bush charged, "Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder.... And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq." To Americans he used simple scare tactics that had no basis in recent reality. Borrowing a tactic from the late John Lennon, Bush asked, "Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein," in his 2003 State of the Union Address. "It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. "

Though he never came up with any evidence at all, Bush never gave up this particular line of argument. Just before the war began, he cried in similarly misleading terms, "The Battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on." And in seeking to justify the war in its increasingly unpleasant aftermath before a July 4, 2003, audience of military families at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio, Bush fell back on his same rhetorical crutch: "Since that September day," he intoned, again making reference to the al Qaeda attack to justify his war against Iraq, "the United States will not stand by and wait for another attack or trust in the restraint and good intentions of evil men. We will not permit any terrorist group or outlaw regime to threaten us with weapons of mass murder." Per usual, the president offered no evidence nor even discernible logic to defend his position.

Others in the administration naturally followed suit: Cheney, for instance, was perhaps most aggressive. He asked the audience of a Sunday morning talk show to imagine if, on 9/11, al Qaeda had "had a nuclear weapon and detonated it in the middle of one of our cities, or if they had unleashed . . . biological weapons of some kind, smallpox or anthrax." He then tied that to evidence found in Afghanistan of how al Qaeda leaders "have done everything they could to acquire those capabilities over the years." Recall that he was doing so in support of a war not against al Qaeda, but Iraq. Condoleezza Rice claimed, "There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented." Well, then, asks Arianna Huffington quite logically, "Why not document them?"

The 9/11 Commission's report will not be news to anyone but the majority of the American people who believed their president. For it is not accurate to say that the administration was honestly mistaken in these claims. They knew, but they chose to mislead the country in order to justify the war they had decided upon, according to ex-administration sources like Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke, long before 9/11. "The al Qaeda connection and nuclear weapons issue were the only two ways that you could link Iraq to an imminent security threat to the U.S.," explains Greg Thielmann, former director for strategic proliferation and military affairs at the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. "And the administration was grossly distorting the intelligence on both things." According to the State Department's annual report on the general subject, titled Patterns of Global Terrorism, Baghdad had no ties to al Qaeda or, for that matter, to any of the "al Qaeda?type organizations" operating in the Middle East and Africa.

Link

Goebbel's would have been proud of his disciples.

 

[NesuD]

anything the comission puts out isn't worth the paper it is printed on anyway especially after all the Lib news agencies get done misquoting and mischaracterizing it's contents.

 

[Rob9874]

GrGr, you have to learn to summarize. I don't care how great your point may be, it's not worth my time reading a book.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

yep the Whitehouse WAS misled.

As where the intelligence agencies of almost every first-world nation who cared enough to find out about Iraq.

I?m still quite sure sadam didn?t destroy all of his declared stockpiles, the only question is: wtf man?

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Rob9874
GrGr, you have to learn to summarize. I don't care how great your point may be, it's not worth my time reading a book.

Why, can't handle reading more than one sentence right wing rhetoric? Is it troubling reading a paragraph and actually having to comprehend what was said? What he posted is pretty clear and concise to me, and isn't really any longer than a page or so in a normal book. I guess that's too much for you ADD types eh?

Jesus, pretty soon you lazy readers are going to be asking for cliff notes on anything longer than two sentences.

:roll:

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
jackschmittusa

Lee Hamilton, a well respected DEMOCRAT on the 9/11 commission (Co-chairman i believe) statements are listed above.

The Republican Co-chairman of the 9/11 commission has stated to Wolf Blitzer on CNN, that the commission findings confirm what the Bush administration has stated.

i guess liberals don't really care what the facts are.

I challenge you to prove that the commissions finding confirm what the Bush administration has stated.

The facts are that the Bush administration skewed intelligence to sell the war to the US public and waged a highly efficient propaganda campaign against the US public according to Goebbel's dictum " ?It [the spin] must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.?

Those few points of Goebbel's dictum in this case was:

1. Saddam
2. al-Qa'ida
3. WMD
4. Attack on the US
5. Put them all together indescriminately (=warmongering by selling fear)

Bush: "The liberation of Iraq removed... an ally of al-Qa'ida".

No. It removed one false ally but added who knows how many thousands true devotees. Good going Dubya.

Cheney: "There's overwhelming evidence... of a connection between al-Qa'ida and Iraq"

Evidence of talks maybe. But no evidence of cooperation. The Bushies are all talk and no evidence.

Rumsfeld: "Within a week, or a month, Saddam could give his WMD to al-Qa'ida"

Gee, heartsurgeon, have you stopped beating your wife yet? Spot the false dichitomy with Rummy's statement.

"You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." - President George W. Bush, September 2002.

Of course you can.

At the time of the invasion of Iraq fully 70 per cent of Americans believed Saddam himself, alone or with help, was responsible for 9/11. Nearly 50 per cent believed the attackers had been Iraqis. I wonder who gave them those ideas?

"In the period leading up to the war, President Bush frequently couched his remarks to be deliberately misleading on this topic without actually crossing over the line into what all would recognize as a lie. For instance, in his 2003 State of the Union, Bush claimed, ''Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda,?Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own." The theme of Saddam's training and funding of "al Qaeda?type organizations before, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations" was a constant feature of the president's speeches. Following a terrorist attack in Bali that left over 180 people dead, Bush insisted that Saddam planned to employ al-Qaida as his own "forward army" against the West. In a speech to the United Nations on Sept. 12, 2002, Bush charged, "Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder.... And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq." To Americans he used simple scare tactics that had no basis in recent reality. Borrowing a tactic from the late John Lennon, Bush asked, "Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein," in his 2003 State of the Union Address. "It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. "

Though he never came up with any evidence at all, Bush never gave up this particular line of argument. Just before the war began, he cried in similarly misleading terms, "The Battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on." And in seeking to justify the war in its increasingly unpleasant aftermath before a July 4, 2003, audience of military families at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio, Bush fell back on his same rhetorical crutch: "Since that September day," he intoned, again making reference to the al Qaeda attack to justify his war against Iraq, "the United States will not stand by and wait for another attack or trust in the restraint and good intentions of evil men. We will not permit any terrorist group or outlaw regime to threaten us with weapons of mass murder." Per usual, the president offered no evidence nor even discernible logic to defend his position.

Others in the administration naturally followed suit: Cheney, for instance, was perhaps most aggressive. He asked the audience of a Sunday morning talk show to imagine if, on 9/11, al Qaeda had "had a nuclear weapon and detonated it in the middle of one of our cities, or if they had unleashed . . . biological weapons of some kind, smallpox or anthrax." He then tied that to evidence found in Afghanistan of how al Qaeda leaders "have done everything they could to acquire those capabilities over the years." Recall that he was doing so in support of a war not against al Qaeda, but Iraq. Condoleezza Rice claimed, "There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented." Well, then, asks Arianna Huffington quite logically, "Why not document them?"

The 9/11 Commission's report will not be news to anyone but the majority of the American people who believed their president. For it is not accurate to say that the administration was honestly mistaken in these claims. They knew, but they chose to mislead the country in order to justify the war they had decided upon, according to ex-administration sources like Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke, long before 9/11. "The al Qaeda connection and nuclear weapons issue were the only two ways that you could link Iraq to an imminent security threat to the U.S.," explains Greg Thielmann, former director for strategic proliferation and military affairs at the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. "And the administration was grossly distorting the intelligence on both things." According to the State Department's annual report on the general subject, titled Patterns of Global Terrorism, Baghdad had no ties to al Qaeda or, for that matter, to any of the "al Qaeda?type organizations" operating in the Middle East and Africa.

Link

Goebbel's would have been proud of his disciples.

And there's still a good % of people up here who believe in the obfuscation:

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&threadid=1276602&highlight_key=y&keyword1=terror

 

[Painman]

This Frontline episode on the issue is a little aged, yet still quite poignant, and in retrospect a bit ironic...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/view/

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Rob9874
GrGr, you have to learn to summarize. I don't care how great your point may be, it's not worth my time reading a book.

Why, can't handle reading more than one sentence right wing rhetoric? Is it troubling reading a paragraph and actually having to comprehend what was said? What he posted is pretty clear and concise to me, and isn't really any longer than a page or so in a normal book. I guess that's too much for you ADD types eh?

Jesus, pretty soon you lazy readers are going to be asking for cliff notes on anything longer than two sentences.

:roll:

Not hardly. All I do is read. I just don't care to give someone that much time. If you can get your point across in a few lines, I'll read it. But if I have to invest in more than 60 seconds of my time, I don't care.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Rob9874
GrGr, you have to learn to summarize. I don't care how great your point may be, it's not worth my time reading a book.

Why, can't handle reading more than one sentence right wing rhetoric? Is it troubling reading a paragraph and actually having to comprehend what was said? What he posted is pretty clear and concise to me, and isn't really any longer than a page or so in a normal book. I guess that's too much for you ADD types eh?

Jesus, pretty soon you lazy readers are going to be asking for cliff notes on anything longer than two sentences.

:roll:

Not hardly. All I do is read. I just don't care to give someone that much time. If you can get your point across in a few lines, I'll read it. But if I have to invest in more than 60 seconds of my time, I don't care.

ADD?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Rob9874
GrGr, you have to learn to summarize. I don't care how great your point may be, it's not worth my time reading a book.

Why, can't handle reading more than one sentence right wing rhetoric? Is it troubling reading a paragraph and actually having to comprehend what was said? What he posted is pretty clear and concise to me, and isn't really any longer than a page or so in a normal book. I guess that's too much for you ADD types eh?

Jesus, pretty soon you lazy readers are going to be asking for cliff notes on anything longer than two sentences.

:roll:

Not hardly. All I do is read. I just don't care to give someone that much time. If you can get your point across in a few lines, I'll read it. But if I have to invest in more than 60 seconds of my time, I don't care.

ADD?

Lazy is my guess. He has time to post complaints about not having time, though.

 

[Rob9874]

Lazy is right. But if it makes you feel better by insulting me with ADD claims, go right ahead.

I will challange you to a point-by-point rebuttal of the Kerry issues posted below. And if you don't respond, it's because you have ADD. (Actually, please don't because I'm too lazy to read it.)

John Kerry's Flip Flops

Flip Flopped On Trade With China

In 1991, Kerry Supported Most-Favored Trade Status For China. ?Sen. John Kerry said yesterday that he is breaking party ranks to support most-favored-nation trade status for China ? ?I think the president has some strong arguments about some of the assets of most-favored-nation status for China,? Kerry said.? (John Aloysius Farrell, ?Kerry Breaks Party Ranks To Back China Trade Status,? The Boston Globe, 6/15/91)

In 2000, Kerry Voted In Favor Of Permanent Normal Trade Relations With China. (H.R. 4444, CQ Vote #251: Passed 83-15: R 46-8; D 37-7, 9/19/00, Kerry Voted Yea)

Now Kerry Criticizes The Bush Administration For Trading With China. ?Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said on Monday Americans workers were paying the price for President Bush's weak stance on trade with China and other countries. ? On the bus tour, Kerry singled out the Bush administration's handling of trade with China and said that country was manipulating its currency.? (Caren Bohan, "Kerry Pledges Aggressive Trade Stance," Reuters, 4/26/04)



Flip-Flopped On Iraq War

Kerry Voted For Authorization To Use Force In Iraq. (H.J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kerry Voted Yea.)

In First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President?s Action In Iraq. KERRY: ?George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but 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.? (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/4/03)

Kerry Later Claimed He Voted ?To Threaten? Use Of Force In Iraq. ?I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations.? (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Announcement Of Presidential Candidacy, Mount Pleasant, SC, 9/2/03)

Now, Kerry Says He Is Anti-War Candidate. CHRIS MATTHEWS: ?Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it?s been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?? KERRY: ?I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don?t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.? (MSNBC?s ?Hardball,? 1/6/04)

Flip-Flopped On Eliminating Marriage Penalty For Middle Class

Kerry Said He Will Fight To Keep Tax Relief For Married Couples. ?Howard Dean and Gephardt are going to put the marriage penalty back in place. So if you get married in America, we?re going to charge you more taxes. I do not want to do that.? (Fox News? ?Special Report,? 10/23/03)

Said Democrats Fought To End Marriage Penalty Tax. ?We fought hard to get rid of the marriage penalty.? (MSNBC?s ?News Live,? 7/31/03)

But, In 1998, Kerry Voted Against Eliminating Marriage Penalty Relief For Married Taxpayers With Combined Incomes Less Than $50,000 Per Year, Saving Taxpayers $46 Billion Over 10 Years. (S. 1415, CQ Vote #154: Rejected 48-50: R 5-49; D 43-1, 6/10/98, Kerry Voted Yea)

Flip-Flopped On Patriot Act

Kerry Voted For Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was passed nearly unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and 357-66 in the House. (H.R. 3162, CQ Vote #313: Passed 98-1: R 49-0; D 48-1; I 1-0, 10/25/01, Kerry Voted Yea)

Kerry Used To Defend His Vote. ?Most of [The Patriot Act] has to do with improving the transfer of information between CIA and FBI, and it has to do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on September 11th.? (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Town Hall Meeting, Manchester, NH, 8/6/03)

Now, Kerry Attacks Patriot Act. ?We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time. I?ve been a District Attorney and I know that what law enforcement needs are real tools not restrictions on American?s basic rights.? (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Iowa State University, 12/1/03)

Kerry Took BOTH Sides On First Gulf War

Kerry Took BOTH Sides In First Gulf War In Separate Letters To Same Constituent. ?Rather than take a side--albeit the one he thought was most expedient--Kerry actually stood on both sides of the first Gulf war, much like he did this time around. Consider this ?Notebook? item from TNR?s March 25, 1991 issue, which ran under the headline ?Same Senator, Same Constituent?: ?Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ... to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war.? --letter from Senator John Kerry to Wallace Carter of Newton Centre, Massachusetts, dated January 22 [1991] ?Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush?s response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf.? --Senator Kerry to Wallace Carter, January 31 [1991]? (Noam Scheiber, ?Noam Scheiber?s Daily Journal of Politics, The New Republic Online, 1/28/04)

Flip-Flopped On Gay Marriage Amendment

In 2002, Kerry Signed Letter ?Urging? MA Legislature To Reject Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage. ?We rarely comment on issues that are wholly within the jurisdiction of the General Court, but there are occasions when matters pending before you are of such significance to all residents of the Commonwealth that we think it appropriate for us to express our opinion. One such matter is the proposed Constitutional amendment that would prohibit or seriously inhibit any legal recognition whatsoever of same-sex relationships. We believe it would be a grave error for Massachusetts to enshrine in our Constitution a provision which would have such a negative effect on so many of our fellow residents. ? We are therefore united in urging you to reject this Constitutional amendment and avoid stigmatizing so many of our fellow citizens who do not deserve to be treated in such a manner.? (Sen. John Kerry, et al, Letter To Members Of The Massachusetts Legislature, 7/12/02)

Now, In 2004, Kerry Won?t Rule Out Supporting Similar Amendment. ?Asked if he would support a state constitutional amendment barring gay and lesbian marriages, Kerry didn?t rule out the possibility. ?I?ll have to see what language there is,? he said.? (Susan Milligan, ?Kerry Says GOP May Target Him On ?Wedge Issue,?? The Boston Globe, 2/6/04)

Flip-Flopped On Attacking President During Time Of War

In March 2003, Kerry Promised Not To Attack President When War Began. ?Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts ? said he will cease his complaints once the shooting starts. ?It?s what you owe the troops,? said a statement from Kerry, a Navy veteran of the Vietnam War. ?I remember being one of those guys and reading news reports from home. If America is at war, I won?t speak a word without measuring how it?ll sound to the guys doing the fighting when they?re listening to their radios in the desert.?? (Glen Johnson, ?Democrats On The Stump Plot Their War Rhetoric,? The Boston Globe, 3/11/03)

But Weeks Later, With Troops Just Miles From Baghdad, Kerry Broke His Pledge. ??What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States,? Kerry said in a speech at the Peterborough Town Library. Despite pledging two weeks ago to cool his criticism of the administration once war began, Kerry unleashed a barrage of criticism as US troops fought within 25 miles of Baghdad.? (Glen Johnson, ?Kerry Says Us Needs Its Own ?Regime Change,?? The Boston Globe, 4/3/03)

Flip-Flopped On Death Penalty For Terrorists

In 1996, Kerry Attacked Governor Bill Weld For Supporting Death Penalty For Terrorists. KERRY: ?Your policy would amount to a terrorist protection policy. Mine would put them in jail.? (1996 Massachusetts Senate Debate, 9/16/96)

In 1996, Kerry Said, ?You Can Change Your Mind On Things, But Not On Life-And-Death Issues.? (Timothy J. Connolly, ?The ?Snoozer? Had Some Life,? [Worcester, MA] Telegram & Gazette, 7/3/96)

But, In 2002, Kerry Said He Supported Death Penalty For Terrorists. KERRY: ?The law of the land is the law of the land, but I have also said that I am for the death penalty for terrorists because terrorists have declared war on your country.? (NBC?s ?Meet The Press,? 12/1/02)

Flip-Flopped On No Child Left Behind

Kerry Voted For No Child Left Behind Act. (H.R. 1, CQ Vote #371: Adopted 87-10: R 44-3; D 43-6; I 0-1, 12/18/01, Kerry Voted Yea)

But Now Kerry Is Attacking No Child Left Behind As ?Mockery.? ?Between now and the time I?m sworn in January 2005, I?m going to use every day to make this president accountable for making a mockery of the words ?No Child Left Behind.?? (Holly Ramer, ?Kerry Wants To Make ?Environmental Justice? A Priority,? The Associated Press, 4/22/03)

Kerry Trashed NCLB As ?Unfunded Mandate? With ?Laudable? Goals. ?Kerry referred to [No Child Left Behind] as an ?unfunded mandate? with ?laudable? goals. ?Without the resources, education reform is a sham,? Kerry said. ?I can?t wait to crisscross this country and hold this president accountable for making a mockery of the words ?no child left behind.??? (Matt Leon, ?Sen. Kerry In Tune With Educators,? The [Quincy, MA] Patriot Ledger, 7/11/03)

Flip-Flopped On Affirmative Action

In 1992, Kerry Called Affirmative Action ?Inherently Limited And Divisive.? ?[W]hile praising affirmative action as ?one kind of progress? that grew out of civil rights court battles, Kerry said the focus on a rights-based agenda has ?inadvertently driven most of our focus in this country not to the issue of what is happening to the kids who do not get touched by affirmative action, but ? toward an inherently limited and divisive program which is called affirmative action.? That agenda is limited, he said, because it benefits segments of black and minority populations, but not all. And it is divisive because it creates a ?perception and a reality of reverse discrimination that has actually engendered racism.?? (Lynne Duke, ?Senators Seek Serious Dialogue On Race,? The Washington Post, 4/8/92)

In 2004, Kerry Denied Ever Having Called Affirmative Action ?Divisive.? CNN?s KELLY WALLACE: ?We caught up with the Senator, who said he never called affirmative action divisive, and accused Clark of playing politics.? SEN. KERRY: ?That?s not what I said. I said there are people who believe that. And I said mend it, don?t end it. He?s trying to change what I said, but you can go read the quote. I said very clearly I have always voted for it. I?ve always supported it. I?ve never, ever condemned it. I did what Jim Clyburn did and what Bill Clinton did, which is mend it. And Jim Clyburn wouldn?t be supporting it if it were otherwise. So let?s not have any politics here. Let?s keep the truth.? (CNN?s ?Inside Politics,? 1/30/04)

Flip-Flopped On Ethanol

Kerry Twice Voted Against Tax Breaks For Ethanol. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #44: Rejected 48-52: R 11-32; D 37-20, 3/23/93, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #68: Motion Agreed To 55-43: R 2-40; D 53-3, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea)

Kerry Voted Against Ethanol Mandates. (H.R. 4624, CQ Vote #255: Motion Agreed To 51-50: R 19-25; D 31-25, 8/3/94, Kerry Voted Nay)

Kerry Voted Twice To Increase Liability On Ethanol, Making It Equal To Regular Gasoline. (S. 517, CQ Vote #87: Motion Agreed To 57-42: R 38-10; D 18-32; I 1-0, 4/25/02 Kerry Voted Nay; S. 14, CQ Vote #208: Rejected 38-57: R 9-40; D 28-17; I 1-0, 6/5/03, Kerry Voted Yea)

On The Campaign Trail, Though, Kerry Is For Ethanol. KERRY: ?I?m for ethanol, and I think it?s a very important partial ingredient of the overall mix of alternative and renewable fuels we ought to commit to.? (MSNBC/DNC, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Des Moines, IA, 11/24/03)

Flip-Flopped On Cuba Sanctions

Senator Kerry Has Long Voted Against Stronger Cuba Sanctions. (H.R. 927, CQ Vote #489, Motion Rejected 59-36: R 50-2; D 9-34, 10/17/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 955, CQ Vote #183: Rejected 38-61: R 5-49; D 33-12, 7/17/97, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1234, CQ Vote #189, Motion Agreed To 55-43: R 43-10; D 12-33, 6/30/99, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2549, CQ Vote #137: Motion Agreed To 59-41: R 52-3; D 7-38, 6/20/00, Kerry Voted Nay)

In 2000, Kerry Said Florida Politics Is Only Reason Cuba Sanctions Still In Place. ?Senator John F. Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat and member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said in an interview that a reevaluation of relations with Cuba was ?way overdue.? ?We have a frozen, stalemated, counterproductive policy that is not in humanitarian interests nor in our larger credibility interest in the region,? Kerry said. ? ?It speaks volumes about the problems in the current American electoral process. ? The only reason we don?t reevaluate the policy is the politics of Florida.?? (John Donnelly, ?Policy Review Likely On Cuba,? The Boston Globe, 4/9/00)

Now Kerry Panders To Cuban Vote, Saying He Would Not Lift Embargo Against Cuba. TIM RUSSERT: ?Would you consider lifting sanctions, lifting the embargo against Cuba?? SEN. KERRY: ?Not unilaterally, not now, no.? (NBC?s ?Meet The Press,? 8/31/03)

Kerry Does Not Support ?Opening Up The Embargo Wily Nilly.? ?Kerry said he believes in ?engagement? with the communist island nation but that does not mean, ?Open up the dialogue.? He believes it ?means travel and perhaps even remittances or cultural exchanges? but he does not support ?opening up the embargo wily nilly.?? (Daniel A. Ricker, ?Kerry Says Bush Did Not Build A ?Legitimate Coalition? In Iraq,? The Miami Herald, 11/25/03)

Flip-Flopped On NAFTA

Kerry Voted For NAFTA. (H.R. 3450, CQ Vote #395: Passed 61-38: R 34-10; D 27-28, 11/20/93, Kerry Voted Yea)

Kerry Recognized NAFTA Is Our Future. ??NAFTA recognizes the reality of today?s economy - globalization and technology,? Kerry said. ?Our future is not in competing at the low-level wage job; it is in creating high-wage, new technology jobs based on our skills and our productivity.?? (John Aloysius Farrell, ?Senate?s OK Finalizes NAFTA Pact,? The Boston Globe, 11/21/93)

Now, Kerry Expresses Doubt About NAFTA. ?Kerry, who voted for NAFTA in 1993, expressed some doubt about the strength of free-trade agreements. ?If it were before me today, I would vote against it because it doesn?t have environmental or labor standards in it,? he said.? (David Lightman, ?Democrats Battle For Labor?s Backing,? Hartford Courant, 8/6/03)

Flip-Flopped On Double Taxation Of Dividends

December 2002: Kerry Favored Ending Double Taxation Of Dividends. ?[T]o encourage investments in the jobs of the future - I think we should eliminate the tax on capital gains for investments in critical technology companies - zero capital gains on $100 million issuance of stock if it?s held for 5 years and has created real jobs. And we should attempt to end the double taxation of dividends.? (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At The City Club Of Cleveland, 12/3/02)

May 2003: Kerry Said He Opposed Ending Double Taxation Of Dividends. ?Kerry also reiterated his opposition to the Republican plan to cut taxes on stock dividends. ?This is not the time for a dividends tax cut that goes to individuals,? he said.? (?Kerry Says Time Is On Dems? Side,? The Associated Press, 5/8/03)

Flip-Flopped On Raising Taxes During Economic Downturn

September 2001: Said Should Not Raise Taxes In Economic Downturn. ?The first priority is the economy of our nation. And when you have a downturn in the economy, the last thing you do is raise taxes or cut spending. We shouldn?t do either. We need to maintain a course that hopefully will stimulate the economy. . . . No, we should not raise taxes, but we have to put everything on the table to take a look at why we have this structural problem today. . . .[Y]ou don?t want to raise taxes.? (NBC?s ?Meet The Press,? 9/2/01)





We Should ?Absolutely Not Raise Taxes.? ?Well, I think it?s very clear what I favor because we voted for it early in the spring, which was the Democratic budget alternative that had triggers in it where you didn?t wind up spending money you don?t have. It had a smaller tax cut but more tax cut for a stimulus, which is what we need. So you ask me, what do we need now? Yes, we need additional stimulus. We should absolutely not raise taxes. We should not cut spending. What we need to do is drive the economy of this country. The economy is the number one issue. It is the most important thing we should focus on.? (CNN?s ?Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields,? 9/8/01)


April 2002: Said He Wanted Larger Tax Cut And Was ?Not In Favor Of? Repeal. CNN?s TUCKER CARLSON: ?Senator Kerry . . . [many Democrats] [g]et a lot of political mileage out of criticizing [President Bush?s tax cut], but nobody has the courage to say repeal it. Are you for repealing it?? KERRY: ?It?s not a question of courage. . . . And it?s not an issue right now. We passed appropriately a tax cut as a stimulus, some $40 billion. Many of us thought it should have even maybe been a little bit larger this last year ? [T]he next tax cut doesn?t take effect until 2004. If we can grow the economy enough between now and then, if we have sensible policies in place and make good choices, who knows what our choices will be. So it?s simply not a ripe issue right now. And I?m not in favor of turning around today and repealing it.? (CNN?s ?Crossfire,? 4/16/02)

December 2002: Flip-Flopped, Would Keep Tax Cuts From Taking Effect. NBC?s TIM RUSSERT: ?Senator . . . should we freeze or roll back the Bush tax cut?? KERRY: ?Well, I wouldn?t take away from people who?ve already been given their tax cut ? What I would not do is give any new Bush tax cuts.? ? RUSSERT: ?So the tax cut that?s scheduled to be implemented in the coming years ?? KERRY: ?No new tax cut under the Bush plan. . . . It doesn?t make economic sense.? ? RUSSERT: ?Now, this is a change ?? (NBC?s ?Meet The Press,? 12/1/02)


Called For Freeze Of Bush Tax Cuts In Favor Of Year-Long Suspension Of Payroll Taxes On First $10,000 Of Personal Income. ?Kerry said Bush?s tax cuts have mainly benefited the rich while doing little for the economy. Kerry is proposing to halt Bush?s additional tax cuts and instead impose a yearlong suspension of payroll taxes on the first $10,000 of income to help the poor and middle class.? (Tyler Bridges, ?Kerry Visits Miami To Start Raising Funds,? The Miami Herald, 12/7/02)


Flip-Flopped On Small Business Income Taxes

Kerry Voted Against Exempting Small Businesses And Family Farms From Clinton Income Tax Increase. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #79: Motion Agreed To 54-45: R 0-43; D 54-2, 3/25/93, Kerry Voted Yea)

Three Months Later, Kerry Voted In Favor Of Proposal To Exclude Small Businesses From The Increased Income Tax. (S. 1134, CQ Vote #171: Motion Rejected 56-42: R 43-0; D 13-42, 6/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea)

Kerry Claimed He Fought To Exempt Small Businesses From Income Tax Increases. ?I worked to amend the reconciliation bill so that it would ? exempt small businesses who are classified as subchapter S corporations from the increased individual income tax.? (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 6/29/93, p. S 8268)

Kerry Flip-Flopped On 50-Cent Gas Tax Increase

In 1994, Kerry Backed Half-Dollar Increase In Gas Tax. ?Kerry said [the Concord Coalition?s scorecard] did not accurately reflect individual lawmakers? efforts to cut the deficit. ?It doesn?t reflect my $43 billion package of cuts or my support for a 50-cent increase in the gas tax,? Kerry said.? (Jill Zuckman, ?Deficit-Watch Group Gives High Marks To 7 N.E. Lawmakers,? The Boston Globe, 3/1/94)

Two Years Later, Kerry Flip-Flopped. ?Kerry no longer supports the 50-cent [gas tax] hike, nor the 25-cent hike proposed by the [Concord] coalition.? (Michael Grunwald, ?Kerry Gets Low Mark On Budgeting,? The Boston Globe, 4/30/96)

Flip-Flopped On Leaving Abortion Up To States

Kerry Used To Say Abortion Should Be Left Up To States. ?I think the question of abortion is one that should be left for the states to decide,? Kerry said during his failed 1972 Congressional bid. (?John Kerry On The Issues,? The [Lowell, MA] Sun, 10/11/72)

Now Kerry Says Abortion Is Law Of Entire Nation. ?The right to choose is the law of the United States. No person has the right to infringe on that freedom. Those of us who are in government have a special responsibility to see to it that the United States continues to protect this right, as it must protect all rights secured by the constitution.? (Sen. John Kerry [D-MA], Congressional Record, 1/22/85)

Flip-Flopped On Litmus Tests For Judicial Nominees

Kerry Used To Oppose Litmus Tests For Judicial Nominees. ?Throughout two centuries, our federal judiciary has been a model institution, one which has insisted on the highest standards of conduct by our public servants and officials, and which has survived with undiminished respect. Today, I fear that this institution is threatened in a way that we have not seen before. ? This threat is that of the appointment of a judiciary which is not independent, but narrowly ideological, through the systematic targeting of any judicial nominee who does not meet the rigid requirements of litmus tests imposed ?? (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 2/3/86, p. S864)

But Now Kerry Says He Would Only Support Supreme Court Nominees Who Pledge To Uphold Roe v. Wade. ?The potential retirement of Supreme Court justices makes the 2004 presidential election especially important for women, Senator John F. Kerry told a group of female Democrats yesterday, and he pledged that if elected president he would nominate to the high court only supporters of abortion rights under its Roe v. Wade decision. ? ?Any president ought to appoint people to the Supreme Court who understand the Constitution and its interpretation by the Supreme Court. In my judgment, it is and has been settled law that women, Americans, have a defined right of privacy and that the government does not make the decision with respect to choice. Individuals do.?? (Glen Johnson, ?Kerry Vows Court Picks To Be Abortion-Rights Supporters,? The Boston Globe, 4/9/03)

Flip-Flopped On Federal Health Benefits

In 1993, Kerry Expressed Doubts That Federal Employees Health Benefits System Worked Well. ?Hillary Rodham Clinton today offered a fresh description of one of the most confusing elements of the Administration health care plan, the health insurance purchasing alliances, saying they would let all Americans choose coverage in the way members of Congress do. ? Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, said he was not sure that the Federal program worked all that well.? (Adam Clymer, ?Hillary Clinton Says Health Plan Will Be Familiar,? The New York Times, 12/8/93)

Kerry Expressed Personal Dissatisfaction With His Coverage Through Federal Program. ?Earlier this month, when Hillary Rodham Clinton came to Boston and vowed that average Americans would get as good coverage as that enjoyed by their senators and representatives, Sen. John F. Kerry told Clinton that he thought the country could do better. The Massachusetts Democrat said he was thinking, among other recent disasters, of his $500 dental bill for treatment of an abscessed tooth. ?Because it was done in the dentist?s office, rather than the hospital, they didn?t cover it. So they were urging me to go spend twice as much in a hospital,? said Kerry, who is covered by BACE, the Beneficial Association of Capitol Employees.? (Ana Puga, ?Lawmakers Talk Health Care,? The Boston Globe, 12/19/93)

Now, On Campaign Trail, Kerry Is Enthusiastic About Health Care He Receives As Senator. ?As a U.S. Senator, I could get the best health care in the world. Most people aren?t so lucky, and we need to change that. That?s why my plan gives every American access to the same kind of health care that members of Congress give themselves. ? Because your family?s health care is just as important as any politicians? in Washington.? (Sen. John Kerry, ?Affordable Health Care For All Americans,? Remarks At Mercy Medical, Cedar Rapids, IA, 12/14/03)

Kerry: ?I?m Going To Make Available To Every American The Same Health Care Plan That Senators And Congressmen Give Themselves ?? (Sen. John Kerry, AARP Democrat Candidate Debate, Bedford, NH, 11/18/03)

Flip-Flopped On Tax Credits For Small Business Health

In 2001, Kerry Voted Against Amendment Providing $70 Billion For Tax Credits For Small Business To Purchase Health Insurance. (H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #83: Rejected 49-51: R 48-2; D 1-49, 4/5/01, Kerry Voted Nay)

Now, Kerry Promises Refundable Tax Credits To Small Businesses For Health Coverage. ?Refundable tax credits for up to 50 percent of the cost of coverage will be offered to small businesses and their employees to make health care more affordable.? (?John Kerry?s Plan To Make Health Care Affordable To Every American,? John Kerry For President Website, www.johnkerry.com, Accessed 1/21/04)

Flip-Flopped On Health Coverage

In 1994, Kerry Said Democrats Push Health Care Too Much. ?[Kerry] said Kennedy and Clinton?s insistence on pushing health care reform was a major cause of the Democratic Party?s problems at the polls.? (Joe Battenfeld, ?Jenny Craig Hit With Sex Harassment Complaint - By Men,? Boston Herald, 11/30/94)

But Now Kerry Calls Health Care His ?Passion.? ?Sen. John Kerry says expanding coverage is ?my passion.?? (Susan Page, ?Health Specifics Could Backfire On Candidates,? USA Today, 6/2/03)

Flip-Flopped On Welfare Reform

In 1993, Kerry Voted To Kill Bipartisan Welfare Work Requirement. In 1993, Kerry and Kennedy voted against a welfare-to-work requirement that was supported by many Democrats, including Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Harry Reid (D-NV):





Fiscal 1993 Supplemental Appropriations - Welfare Work Requirement. ?Moynihan, D-N.Y., motion to table (kill) the D?Amato, R-N.Y., amendment to sharply cut federal welfare administration aid to states that do not, within a year, require at least 10 percent of their able-bodied welfare recipients without dependents to work. The required workfare participation rate would be increased by 2 percent a year until 50 percent were working.? (H.R. 2118, CQ Vote #163: Rejected 34-64: R 1-42; D 33-22, 6/22/93, Kerry Voted Yea)


But In 1996, Kerry Voted For Welfare Reform. (H.R. 3734, CQ Vote #262: Adopted 78-21: R 53-0; D 25-21, 8/1/96, Kerry Voted Yea)

Flip-Flops On Stock Options Expensing

Kerry Used To Oppose Expensing Stock Options. ?Democratic Senator John F. Kerry was among those fighting expensing of stock options.? (Sue Kirchhoff, ?Senate Blocks Options,? The Boston Globe, 7/16/02)

Kerry Said Expensing Options Would Not ?Benefit The Investing Public.? KERRY: ?Mr. President, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ? has proposed a rule that will require companies to amortize the value of stock options and deduct them off of their earnings statements ? I simply cannot see how the FASB rule, as proposed, will benefit the investing public.? (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 3/10/94, p. S2772)

But Now Kerry Says He Supports Carrying Of Stock Options As Corporate Expense. ?On an issue related to corporate scandals, Kerry for the first time endorsed the carrying of stock options as a corporate expense. The use of stock options was abused by some companies and contributed to overly optimistic balance sheets. Kerry applauded steps by Microsoft Corp. to eliminate stock options for employees and said all publicly traded companies should be required to expense such options.? (Dan Balz, ?Kerry Raps Bush Policy On Postwar Iraq,? The Washington Post, 7/11/03)

Flip-Flopped On Medical Marijuana

Kerry Said His ?Personal Disposition Is Open To The Issue Of Medical Marijuana.? ?Aaron Houston of the Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana said that just a month ago Mr. Kerry seemed to endorse medical marijuana use, and when asked about the content of his mysterious study, said, ?I am trying to find out. I don?t know.? Mr. Kerry did say his ?personal disposition is open to the issue of medical marijuana? and that he?d stop Drug Enforcement Administration raids on patients using the stuff under California?s medical marijuana law.? (Jennifer Harper, ?Inside Politics,? The Washington Times, 8/8/03)

But Now Kerry Says He Wants To Wait For Study Analyzing Issue Before Making Final Decision. ?The Massachusetts Democrat said Wednesday he?d put off any final decision on medical marijuana because there?s ?a study under way analyzing what the science is.?? (Jennifer Harper, ?Inside Politics,? The Washington Times, 8/8/03)

Flip-Flopped On Burma Sanctions

In 1995, Kerry Was Against Burma Sanctions. ??I question whether isolation is a successful means of promoting political change,? Kerry told a constituent in a 1995 letter justifying his opposition to a Burma sanction bill.? (Geeta Anand, et al., ?Menino Gets Ahead Of Himself, Starts Contemplating Third Term,? The Boston Globe, 5/18/97)

But Now Kerry Supports Burma Sanctions. ?In his 1996 reelection campaign, Kerry, after Governor William F. Weld took up the cause, was badgered by advisers into shifting his position. But as he eyes a presidential campaign and the Burma sanction movement gains credibility, Kerry ? describes the Burma regime as a ?semi-criminalized dictatorship ? which should not be treated with respect by other nations, but should be instead subject to limitations on travel, investment, and access to the most developed nations.?? (Geeta Anand, et al., ?Menino Gets Ahead Of Himself, Starts Contemplating Third Term,? The Boston Globe, 5/18/97)

Flip-Flopped On Military Experience As Credential For Public Office

Kerry: Service Should Not Be ?Litmus Test? For Leadership. ?Mr. President, you and I know that if support or opposition to the war were to become a litmus test for leadership, America would never have leaders or recover from the divisions created by that war. You and I know that if service or nonservice in the war is to become a test of qualification for high office, you would not have a Vice President, nor would you have a Secretary of Defense and our Nation would never recover from the divisions created by that war.? (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/08/92, p. S17709)

But Now Kerry Constantly ?Challenges The Stature Of His Democratic Opponents? Over Their Lack Of Military Service. ?And more than ever, Mr. Kerry is invoking his st

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Rob9874
Lazy is right. But if it makes you feel better by insulting me with ADD claims, go right ahead.

I will challange you to a point-by-point rebuttal of the Kerry issues posted below. And if you don't respond, it's because you have ADD. (Actually, please don't because I'm too lazy to read it.)

John Kerry's Flip Flops

Flip Flopped On Trade With China

In 1991, Kerry Supported Most-Favored Trade Status For China. ?Sen. John Kerry said yesterday that he is breaking party ranks to support most-favored-nation trade status for China ? ?I think the president has some strong arguments about some of the assets of most-favored-nation status for China,? Kerry said.? (John Aloysius Farrell, ?Kerry Breaks Party Ranks To Back China Trade Status,? The Boston Globe, 6/15/91)

In 2000, Kerry Voted In Favor Of Permanent Normal Trade Relations With China. (H.R. 4444, CQ Vote #251: Passed 83-15: R 46-8; D 37-7, 9/19/00, Kerry Voted Yea)

Now Kerry Criticizes The Bush Administration For Trading With China. ?Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said on Monday Americans workers were paying the price for President Bush's weak stance on trade with China and other countries. ? On the bus tour, Kerry singled out the Bush administration's handling of trade with China and said that country was manipulating its currency.? (Caren Bohan, "Kerry Pledges Aggressive Trade Stance," Reuters, 4/26/04)

How is that a flip-flop? It's entirely reasonable to be for trade with China but then criticize the current administration's handling of that trade. In fact, the Bush administration failed to heed the ITC on three separate occasions and wrongfully imposed tariffs in another case.

Flip-Flopped On Iraq War

Kerry Voted For Authorization To Use Force In Iraq. (H.J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kerry Voted Yea.)

In First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President?s Action In Iraq. KERRY: ?George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but 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.? (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/4/03)

Kerry Later Claimed He Voted ?To Threaten? Use Of Force In Iraq. ?I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations.? (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Announcement Of Presidential Candidacy, Mount Pleasant, SC, 9/2/03)

Now, Kerry Says He Is Anti-War Candidate. CHRIS MATTHEWS: ?Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it?s been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?? KERRY: ?I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don?t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.? (MSNBC?s ?Hardball,? 1/6/04)

Again, how is this a flip-flop?

From his first comments:
"I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity"

That's in line with his later comment:
"I don?t believe the president took us to war as he should have"

Kerry doesn't believe the ends justify the means. He supported going to war but not in the way it was done. That is how he disagrees with Bush.

Flip-Flopped On Eliminating Marriage Penalty For Middle Class

Kerry Said He Will Fight To Keep Tax Relief For Married Couples. ?Howard Dean and Gephardt are going to put the marriage penalty back in place. So if you get married in America, we?re going to charge you more taxes. I do not want to do that.? (Fox News? ?Special Report,? 10/23/03)

Said Democrats Fought To End Marriage Penalty Tax. ?We fought hard to get rid of the marriage penalty.? (MSNBC?s ?News Live,? 7/31/03)

But, In 1998, Kerry Voted Against Eliminating Marriage Penalty Relief For Married Taxpayers With Combined Incomes Less Than $50,000 Per Year, Saving Taxpayers $46 Billion Over 10 Years. (S. 1415, CQ Vote #154: Rejected 48-50: R 5-49; D 43-1, 6/10/98, Kerry Voted Yea)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:SP02686:

There's the text of the amendment to S.1415 which was a bill to reform and restructure the processes by which tobacco products are manufactured, marketed, and distributed, to prevent the use of tobacco products by minors, to redress the adverse health effects of tobacco use, and for other purposes.

BTW, FIVE Republican Senators voted Yea, along with Sen. Kerry.

Flip-Flopped On Patriot Act

Kerry Voted For Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was passed nearly unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and 357-66 in the House. (H.R. 3162, CQ Vote #313: Passed 98-1: R 49-0; D 48-1; I 1-0, 10/25/01, Kerry Voted Yea)

Kerry Used To Defend His Vote. ?Most of [The Patriot Act] has to do with improving the transfer of information between CIA and FBI, and it has to do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on September 11th.? (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Town Hall Meeting, Manchester, NH, 8/6/03)

Now, Kerry Attacks Patriot Act. ?We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time. I?ve been a District Attorney and I know that what law enforcement needs are real tools not restrictions on American?s basic rights.? (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Iowa State University, 12/1/03)

Kerry, along with several Republican Senators, having had the time now to review the Patriot Act fully and see it in action, along with the abuses of certain civil rights it allows, now wants to correct the language of the Patriot Act to protect innocent citizens from unlawful surveillance, search, and seizure. Nothing flip-flopping about that, at all. May be cognitive dissonance but not a flip-flop.

Kerry Took BOTH Sides On First Gulf War

Kerry Took BOTH Sides In First Gulf War In Separate Letters To Same Constituent. ?Rather than take a side--albeit the one he thought was most expedient--Kerry actually stood on both sides of the first Gulf war, much like he did this time around. Consider this ?Notebook? item from TNR?s March 25, 1991 issue, which ran under the headline ?Same Senator, Same Constituent?: ?Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ... to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war.? --letter from Senator John Kerry to Wallace Carter of Newton Centre, Massachusetts, dated January 22 [1991]

?Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush?s response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf.? --Senator Kerry to Wallace Carter, January 31 [1991]? (Noam Scheiber, ?Noam Scheiber?s Daily Journal of Politics, The New Republic Online, 1/28/04)

Pretty obvious one there, but, nothing any other politician wouldn't do. Form letters sent out by his staff in response to letters from constituents.

Flip-Flopped On Gay Marriage Amendment

In 2002, Kerry Signed Letter ?Urging? MA Legislature To Reject Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage. ?We rarely comment on issues that are wholly within the jurisdiction of the General Court, but there are occasions when matters pending before you are of such significance to all residents of the Commonwealth that we think it appropriate for us to express our opinion. One such matter is the proposed Constitutional amendment that would prohibit or seriously inhibit any legal recognition whatsoever of same-sex relationships. We believe it would be a grave error for Massachusetts to enshrine in our Constitution a provision which would have such a negative effect on so many of our fellow residents. ? We are therefore united in urging you to reject this Constitutional amendment and avoid stigmatizing so many of our fellow citizens who do not deserve to be treated in such a manner.? (Sen. John Kerry, et al, Letter To Members Of The Massachusetts Legislature, 7/12/02)

Now, In 2004, Kerry Won?t Rule Out Supporting Similar Amendment. ?Asked if he would support a state constitutional amendment barring gay and lesbian marriages, Kerry didn?t rule out the possibility. ?I?ll have to see what language there is,? he said.? (Susan Milligan, ?Kerry Says GOP May Target Him On ?Wedge Issue,?? The Boston Globe, 2/6/04)

How is that a flip-flop? He hasn't supported anything in particular per that second statement. He is saying he'll hold off on making a decision until he's seen the language of any new legislation. That's a rather logical way to approach it.

Flip-Flopped On Attacking President During Time Of War

In March 2003, Kerry Promised Not To Attack President When War Began. ?Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts ? said he will cease his complaints once the shooting starts. ?It?s what you owe the troops,? said a statement from Kerry, a Navy veteran of the Vietnam War. ?I remember being one of those guys and reading news reports from home. If America is at war, I won?t speak a word without measuring how it?ll sound to the guys doing the fighting when they?re listening to their radios in the desert.?? (Glen Johnson, ?Democrats On The Stump Plot Their War Rhetoric,? The Boston Globe, 3/11/03)

But Weeks Later, With Troops Just Miles From Baghdad, Kerry Broke His Pledge. ??What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States,? Kerry said in a speech at the Peterborough Town Library. Despite pledging two weeks ago to cool his criticism of the administration once war began, Kerry unleashed a barrage of criticism as US troops fought within 25 miles of Baghdad.? (Glen Johnson, ?Kerry Says Us Needs Its Own ?Regime Change,?? The Boston Globe, 4/3/03)

Kerry's first statements were on the eve of war and he certainly didn't want to undermine moral of the troops before they went into battle.

Once things seemed to be well in-hand, Kerry returned to his criticisms of Bush's handling of the diplomatic effort, the same stance he had had previously.

Kerry did say on 4/3/03, though, ''It is possible that the word `regime change' is too harsh. Perhaps it is.''

Flip-Flopped On Death Penalty For Terrorists

In 1996, Kerry Attacked Governor Bill Weld For Supporting Death Penalty For Terrorists. KERRY: ?Your policy would amount to a terrorist protection policy. Mine would put them in jail.? (1996 Massachusetts Senate Debate, 9/16/96)

In 1996, Kerry Said, ?You Can Change Your Mind On Things, But Not On Life-And-Death Issues.? (Timothy J. Connolly, ?The ?Snoozer? Had Some Life,? [Worcester, MA] Telegram & Gazette, 7/3/96)

But, In 2002, Kerry Said He Supported Death Penalty For Terrorists. KERRY: ?The law of the land is the law of the land, but I have also said that I am for the death penalty for terrorists because terrorists have declared war on your country.? (NBC?s ?Meet The Press,? 12/1/02)

Considering his 2nd statement was post-9/11, I can't fault him for that. I'm sure many people changed their opinion on death penalties for terrorists after the 9/11 attacks.

Flip-Flopped On No Child Left Behind

Kerry Voted For No Child Left Behind Act. (H.R. 1, CQ Vote #371: Adopted 87-10: R 44-3; D 43-6; I 0-1, 12/18/01, Kerry Voted Yea)

But Now Kerry Is Attacking No Child Left Behind As ?Mockery.? ?Between now and the time I?m sworn in January 2005, I?m going to use every day to make this president accountable for making a mockery of the words ?No Child Left Behind.?? (Holly Ramer, ?Kerry Wants To Make ?Environmental Justice? A Priority,? The Associated Press, 4/22/03)

Kerry Trashed NCLB As ?Unfunded Mandate? With ?Laudable? Goals. ?Kerry referred to [No Child Left Behind] as an ?unfunded mandate? with ?laudable? goals. ?Without the resources, education reform is a sham,? Kerry said. ?I can?t wait to crisscross this country and hold this president accountable for making a mockery of the words ?no child left behind.??? (Matt Leon, ?Sen. Kerry In Tune With Educators,? The [Quincy, MA] Patriot Ledger, 7/11/03)

Again, as with the Patriot Act, it is simply voting for something and then seeing how that thing is improperly used or improperly funded. In this case, the Bush administration has severely underfunded the No Child Left Behind mandates. Ask my sister and everyone with whom she works in the local school system here what they think of NCLB and you'll get an earful! You might want to check out the NEA stance on NCLB, too.

Flip-Flopped On Affirmative Action

In 1992, Kerry Called Affirmative Action ?Inherently Limited And Divisive.? ?[W]hile praising affirmative action as ?one kind of progress? that grew out of civil rights court battles, Kerry said the focus on a rights-based agenda has ?inadvertently driven most of our focus in this country not to the issue of what is happening to the kids who do not get touched by affirmative action, but ? toward an inherently limited and divisive program which is called affirmative action.? That agenda is limited, he said, because it benefits segments of black and minority populations, but not all. And it is divisive because it creates a ?perception and a reality of reverse discrimination that has actually engendered racism.?? (Lynne Duke, ?Senators Seek Serious Dialogue On Race,? The Washington Post, 4/8/92)

In 2004, Kerry Denied Ever Having Called Affirmative Action ?Divisive.? CNN?s KELLY WALLACE: ?We caught up with the Senator, who said he never called affirmative action divisive, and accused Clark of playing politics.? SEN. KERRY: ?That?s not what I said. I said there are people who believe that. And I said mend it, don?t end it. He?s trying to change what I said, but you can go read the quote. I said very clearly I have always voted for it. I?ve always supported it. I?ve never, ever condemned it. I did what Jim Clyburn did and what Bill Clinton did, which is mend it. And Jim Clyburn wouldn?t be supporting it if it were otherwise. So let?s not have any politics here. Let?s keep the truth.? (CNN?s ?Inside Politics,? 1/30/04)

Kerry's statements calling affirmative action "inherently limited and divisive" were directed towards changes being made that he opposed. You'll understand this if you read that first statement properly and read his response to Kelly Wallace and in the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/30/politics/campaign/30CND-CAMP.html?ex=1087876800&en=dc22e860c95a7333&ei=5070

At the Democratic candidate debate on Thursday in Greenville, Tom Brokaw of NBC News asked Mr. Kerry about his remarks on affirmative action, saying that he had "expressed some reservations about affirmative action as it's currently constituted" and that it "represented a culture of dependency."

But Mr. Kerry replied his remarks were being mischaracterized.

"Actually, Tom, that's not what I said," Mr. Kerry said. "What I described was what the critics were saying about it and about the growing questions about it."

He added: "There were a great many questions in the country about how it was being implemented. We wanted to keep it. I've always supported it. In the very speech in which I raised what those perceptions were, I said at the beginning, `I support affirmative action.' I said at the end, `I support affirmative action.' "

Flip-Flopped On Ethanol

Kerry Twice Voted Against Tax Breaks For Ethanol. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #44: Rejected 48-52: R 11-32; D 37-20, 3/23/93, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #68: Motion Agreed To 55-43: R 2-40; D 53-3, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea)

Kerry Voted Against Ethanol Mandates. (H.R. 4624, CQ Vote #255: Motion Agreed To 51-50: R 19-25; D 31-25, 8/3/94, Kerry Voted Nay)

Kerry Voted Twice To Increase Liability On Ethanol, Making It Equal To Regular Gasoline. (S. 517, CQ Vote #87: Motion Agreed To 57-42: R 38-10; D 18-32; I 1-0, 4/25/02 Kerry Voted Nay; S. 14, CQ Vote #208: Rejected 38-57: R 9-40; D 28-17; I 1-0, 6/5/03, Kerry Voted Yea)

On The Campaign Trail, Though, Kerry Is For Ethanol. KERRY: ?I?m for ethanol, and I think it?s a very important partial ingredient of the overall mix of alternative and renewable fuels we ought to commit to.? (MSNBC/DNC, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Des Moines, IA, 11/24/03)

Debunked:

http://bushcampaignlies.blogspot.com/2004/04/bush-campaign-lie-20-kerry-flip.html

Hmm...seems this site has information debunking the rest of your alleged Kerry flip-flops:

http://bushcampaignlies.blogspot.com/2004/03/kerrys-flip-flops.html

 

[GrGr]

*GrGr, you must learn to summarize*

But I do summarize. What I post is but a small portion of my argument I have started highlighting and underlining particularily important points because I know that not everybody will take the one or two minutes it takes to read through the post.

As for your Kerry flip flop argument in this thread and others. You say that my post challenging heartsurgeon to prove that the Bush administration was not misleading the US citizens with their claims is too long to be answered. That is not so. Heartsurgeon will not be able to do so simply because the Bush administration has not offered any evidence or factual basis for their position that have proven to be more than misrepresentations ("gross distortions") of known facts at best.

And then you post your Kerry flip flop thing and want us to deny that Kerry flip flopped. But when it comes to flip flops everybody who changes their mind about something can be accused of flipflopping. There have been several threads here listing *gasp* Bush's flipflops. In fact compare Bush's whole 2000 campaign with his actual politics as President and you see the Mother of All Flip Flops. The issue is not IF somebody flipflops but WHY. Keynes, the economist, once said to somebody who accused him of flipflopping: When I get new information, I change my position. What, sir, do you do with new information?

 

[heartsurgeon]

prove that the Bush administration was not misleading the US citizens

The 9/11 commission co-chairman, respected democrat and republican politiicians, have both stated that the commission findings and statements by the Bush Administtration are not much different, and that efforts by the press to portray Adminstration statements as not supported by the commissions findings are wrong.


but you go ahead and keep chanting your mantra...this will help Bush get re-elected.

hari krishna
hari krishna
bush lied
bush lied

 

[cash1220]

in light of the bipartisan 9/11 panel findings the dems are still trying to say there was no link between iraq and al-qaeda?

i think its time to cut your loses on this one

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

prove that the Bush administration was not misleading the US citizens

The 9/11 commission co-chairman, respected democrat and republican politiicians, have both stated that the commission findings and statements by the Bush Administtration are not much different, and that efforts by the press to portray Adminstration statements as not supported by the commissions findings are wrong.


but you go ahead and keep chanting your mantra...this will help Bush get re-elected.

hari krishna
hari krishna
bush lied
bush lied

Are you sure?

Leaders of 9/11 Panel Ask Cheney for Reports

By PHILIP SHENON and RICHARD W. STEVENSON

Published: June 19, 2004


ASHINGTON, June 18 ? The leaders of the Sept. 11 commission called on Vice President Dick Cheney on Friday to turn over any intelligence reports that would support the White House's insistence that there was a close relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

The commission's chairman, Thomas H. Kean, and its vice chairman, Lee H. Hamilton, said they wanted to see any additional information in the administration's possession after Mr. Cheney, in a television interview on Thursday, was asked whether he knew things about Iraq's links to terrorists that the commission did not know.

"Probably," Mr. Cheney replied.

Mr. Kean and Mr. Hamilton said that, in particular, they wanted any information available to back Mr. Cheney's suggestion that one of the hijackers might have met in Prague in April 2001 with an Iraqi intelligence agent, a meeting that the panel's staff believes did not take place. Mr. Cheney said in an interview with CNBC on Thursday that the administration had never been able to prove the meeting took place but was not able to disprove it either.

"We just don't know," Mr. Cheney said.

etc.

link

The commission does not provide facts that support the Bush administration hypothetical musings either. Since when are hypothetical musings considered facts? Neither the 9/11 commission nor the Bush administration have provided proof supporting the Bush administrations statements. All the 9/11 commission has done is say that there is no proof for the opposite either. In other words the commission refuses to rock the boat (surprise, surprise).

The facts, as admitted by both the Bush administration and the commission, are that there is no proof of a connection between Saddam and al-Qa'ida.

Pony up the proof Mr. heartsurgeon. Show us you can do something else than bleat the party line.

 

[heartsurgeon]

Thanks for that link!!! some great stuff in there: for example:

Commission members said Friday that as result of the furor created by that portion of the report, they may rewrite it significantly in preparation of the panel's final report, which is expected to be released next month.

In Moscow, President Vladimir Putin of Russia said Friday that his country gave intelligence reports to the Bush administration after the Sept. 11 attacks suggesting that Saddam Hussein's government was preparing terrorist attacks in the United States or against American targets overseas. It is not clear whether Mr. Cheney was referring to those reports in citing intelligence that the commission was not aware of.

While characterizing any differences between the commission and the White House on the issue as largely semantic...

i'm am all infavor or liberal hyperbole!! keep up the good work boys!

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

prove that the Bush administration was not misleading the US citizens

The 9/11 commission co-chairman, respected democrat and republican politiicians, have both stated that the commission findings and statements by the Bush Administtration are not much different, and that efforts by the press to portray Adminstration statements as not supported by the commissions findings are wrong.


but you go ahead and keep chanting your mantra...this will help Bush get re-elected.

hari krishna
hari krishna
bush lied
bush lied

Are you sure?

Leaders of 9/11 Panel Ask Cheney for Reports

By PHILIP SHENON and RICHARD W. STEVENSON

Published: June 19, 2004


ASHINGTON, June 18 ? The leaders of the Sept. 11 commission called on Vice President Dick Cheney on Friday to turn over any intelligence reports that would support the White House's insistence that there was a close relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

The commission's chairman, Thomas H. Kean, and its vice chairman, Lee H. Hamilton, said they wanted to see any additional information in the administration's possession after Mr. Cheney, in a television interview on Thursday, was asked whether he knew things about Iraq's links to terrorists that the commission did not know.

"Probably," Mr. Cheney replied.

Mr. Kean and Mr. Hamilton said that, in particular, they wanted any information available to back Mr. Cheney's suggestion that one of the hijackers might have met in Prague in April 2001 with an Iraqi intelligence agent, a meeting that the panel's staff believes did not take place. Mr. Cheney said in an interview with CNBC on Thursday that the administration had never been able to prove the meeting took place but was not able to disprove it either.

"We just don't know," Mr. Cheney said.

etc.

link

The commission does not provide facts that support the Bush administration hypothetical musings either. Since when are hypothetical musings considered facts? Neither the 9/11 commission nor the Bush administration have provided proof supporting the Bush administrations statements. All the 9/11 commission has done is say that there is no proof for the opposite either. In other words the commission refuses to rock the boat (surprise, surprise).

The facts, as admitted by both the Bush administration and the commission, are that there is no proof of a connection between Saddam and al-Qa'ida.

Pony up the proof Mr. heartsurgeon. Show us you can do something else than bleat the party line.

It is time for Cheney to put up or shut up. The same goes for hearsturgeon.

 

[Kipper]

Nothing is 'final.' For crying out loud, we still don't know if there was foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor bombings before December 7th. It's unlikely, but there is always a "shadow of a doubt."

Historians will be arguing this over twenty years from now.