Kerry Says He Wouldn't Have Ousted Saddam

[The Vorlon]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040920/D857LANG1.html

By RON FOURNIER
 
NEW YORK (AP) - Staking out new ground on Iraq, Sen. John Kerry said Monday he would not have overthrown Saddam Hussein had he been in the White House, and he accused President Bush of "stubborn incompetence," dishonesty and colossal failures of judgment. Bush said Kerry was flip-flopping.

Less than two years after voting to give Bush authority to invade Iraq, the Democratic candidate said the president had misused that power by rushing to war without the backing of allies, a post-war plan or proper equipment for U.S. troops. "None of which I would have done," Kerry said.

"Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell," he added. "But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."

Bush hit back from a campaign rally in New Hampshire, interpreting Kerry's comment to mean the Democrat believes U.S. security would be better with Saddam still in power. "He's saying he prefers the stability of a dictatorship to the hope and security of democracy," the Republican incumbent said.

"Today, my opponent continued his pattern of twisting in the wind," Bush said. "He apparently woke up this morning and has now decided, No, we should not have invaded Iraq, after just last month saying he would have voted for force even knowing everything we know today."

Both candidates addressed partisan crowds, drawing cheers and hoots as they stretched each other's records and rhetoric - mixing facts with political creativity toward the same goal: raising doubts about the other man's credibility.

Kerry called on Bush to do a much better job rallying allies, training Iraqi security forces, hastening reconstruction plans and ensuring that elections are conducted on time. But his speech was thin on details, with Kerry saying Bush's miscalculations had made solutions harder to come by.

Bush cited Kerry's four-point plan and dismissed it as proposing "exactly what we're currently doing."

With more than 1,000 U.S. troops killed in Iraq, including nearly 900 since Bush declared an end to major combat, with free elections in doubt, reconstruction efforts stalled and violence and kidnappings on the rise, Iraq could be Bush's biggest political liability. Even some Republican senators have begun to publicly second-guess the president's policies.

But Kerry has failed to capitalize thus far, struggling for months to find a clear, consistent way to differentiate his views from those of his Democratic rivals during the primary season and, since the spring, his general election foe in the White House.

Kerry's advisers say they're not sure whether it is too late for the Democrat to make the Iraq critique resonate. Polls show voters favor Bush over Kerry on Iraq and terrorism. The president shines the spotlight on his foreign policy agenda with a visit Tuesday to the United Nations.

Kerry said in August that he would have voted in 2002 to give Bush war-making ability, even had he known no weapons of mass destruction would be found. He stood by the vote again Monday, saying the president needed to use the threat of force to "act effectively" against Saddam.

He made a distinction between that vote to grant a president war-making authority and what he himself would have done as commander in chief with such power.

"Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious?" Bush's presidential rival said at New York University.

"Is he really saying to Americans that if we had known there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to al-Qaida, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is resoundingly no because a commander in chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe."

Kerry called national security "a central issue in this campaign," a bow to the fact that the race is being waged on Bush's terrain.

"Invading Iraq was a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight," he said.

Kerry used the word "truth" a dozen times to say Bush had dodged it. That doesn't count the number of times he said the president "failed to level" with Americans or misled and confused them. He blamed Bush for "colossal failures of judgment."

"This is stubborn incompetence," he said.

Kerry has sounded more hawkish, as in December when Democratic primary rival Howard Dean said the world was not safer with Saddam out of power. Anybody who believes that, Kerry said, doesn't "have the judgment to be president."

Reading that quote to his GOP crowd on Monday, Bush cracked: "I could not have said it better."

The running mates got into the act, too. "Iraq's a mess," said Democratic Sen. John Edwards, while Vice President Dick Cheney said Kerry offers only "confusion, weakness, uncertainty and indecision."


Kerry has looked at polling data and determined he must turn this election into a referendum on Iraq.

It is also a "hard left" position designed to energize his base.

Interesting

[Lunar]

Did he just give up trying to stay steady on positions?

If I were the Democrats, I'd run an ad accusing Bush of flip-flopping on virtually every issue too, trying to turn the flip-flopping thing into a wash.

[Sam Spade]

It tells me that there are problems with certain parts of his base being energized.

I still think it's a very stupid thing to say at this point of the race after giving basically the exact opposite answer one month ago.

[ATFFL]

Alright, what is the over-under on how many days until Kerry says the opposite?  

[A18]

Did he just give up trying to stay steady on positions?

If I were the Democrats, I'd run an ad accusing Bush of flip-flopping on virtually every issue too, trying to turn the flip-flopping thing into a wash.

This would have to be done earlier on, I think. Plus, things Bush changed his mind on (campaign finance reform, 9/11 commission) aren't really damning, whereas a war position is a pretty big deal.

I thought Clinton told him to quit talking about Iraq and get back to health care for illegal immigrants.

[Lunar]

Did he just give up trying to stay steady on positions?

If I were the Democrats, I'd run an ad accusing Bush of flip-flopping on virtually every issue too, trying to turn the flip-flopping thing into a wash.

This would have to be done earlier on, I think. Plus, things Bush changed his mind on (campaign finance reform, 9/11 commission) aren't really damning, whereas a war position is a pretty big deal.

I thought Clinton told him to quit talking about Iraq and get back to health care for illegal immigrants.

It's possible to accuse him on pretty much every single issue.  Politicians talk an awful lot, it's inevitable that they say things that contradict each other on every significant issue.  Run a list of 50 issues that Bush has flip-flopped on and then go into depth on the strongest cases.  It wouldn't negate all of Bush's charges, but it would help convince people that Bush isn't a steady leader or something.

[A18]

My theory on ads is that short of Swift Vets, you can't really put an image in people's minds. You can make an image that's already there better or worse.

For example, the DNC can run an ad on Bush saying we can't win the war on terror and then show him saying we are winning and will win it. But people aren't going to care, because no one doesn't understand Bush's position on the war.

[Lunar]

For example, the DNC can run an ad on Bush saying we can't win the war on terror and then show him saying we are winning and will win it. But people aren't going to care, because no one doesn't understand Bush's position on the war.

You try and befuddle the image that they do have on Bush's position.  Make people not quite sure about where he stands after seeing him making contradicting statements.

[agcatter]

Kerry has become Howard Dean, but then he was ALWAYS Howard Dean under the suface.

[© tweed]

He's really getting desperate...

[Sam Spade]

Look, I can see what people are talking about here in terms of what Bush has done in office that's different than what he said he'd do: campaign finance reform, the prescription drug bill, etc.  

These are things I've never supported, but most of the American people support.  So while I don't like it, most people do and are therefore willing to forgive them.

In fact, this is what I've often found out most of the time.  Successful candidates are usually very vague on most things in campaign mode, but specify and come up with totally different solutions while in office.  

Usually during the campaign they have one or two clear planks which they push up towards the front and people usually judge them in re-election as to whether they've made those things a reailty (Reagan's cutting taxes as something that was successful, GHWB's saying "no new taxes", then raising them as being an unsuccessful plank).

The strange thing about this election is that the main campaign plank that GWB is going to be held up to was not made during his campaign, it was made during 9/11.  Right now some people disagree as to whether he's followed through on that, some people agree, but I have said before that this will decide the election and right now it is running in the President's favor.

The only thing that can hurt him in this 9/11 plank is the war on Iraq.  

Which gets me back to the original point.  You can be creative as to your wishy-washiness during your time in office, you can't be during the campaign.  If you don't, people will think you don't have a message and will say whatever you need to get elected. (as people think about Kerry right now, read the polls)  That describes Kerry and his moves, especially in the past 2 months.

Finally, I told many people that Kerry lost his edge when he answered the President's question as to whether he would go into Iraq knowing what we know now, by saying that he would go, without doubt.  

He may lose the election by saying the exact opposite of that, as he did today.

[A18]

For example, the DNC can run an ad on Bush saying we can't win the war on terror and then show him saying we are winning and will win it. But people aren't going to care, because no one doesn't understand Bush's position on the war.

You try and befuddle the image that they do have on Bush's position.  Make people not quite sure about where he stands after seeing him making contradicting statements.

How are you going to make Bush look like an anti-war candidate?

[agcatter]

Yes, and I can't understand why he'd do this so soon in the game.  You don't throw a desperstion bomb in the middle of the third quarter.  Makes no sense.

[??????????]

Look it's 4th and 20 and Kerry is going to try and run the ball! lol

[Monty]

Will Kerry push all his chips in, and promise to bring the troops home?

I hope he does.  

[A18]

Do you have any idea how pissed off that would make the troops?

[Monty]

Do you have any idea how pissed off that would make the troops?

Why?  They volunteered to protect the United States of America, not the streets of Baghdad.

[A18]

The reenlistment rate is unprecedented, so I guess there are people who would rather finish the job their fellow soldiers died for.

Defending the streets of Baghdad is part of defending America.

[12th Doctor]

Look it's 4th and 20 and Kerry is going to try and run the ball! lol

And hear that in the stands?

"It's all over (clap... clap clapclapclap) It's all over (clap... clap clapclapclap)."

Seriously though.  Just three weeks ago Kerry said "Given everything I know now, I still would have ordered the attack".

[MODU]

So, let me get this straight, Kerry voted for the right to go to war, but then said he meant to it as a threat, to be followed up by saying he would have made the same decision as Bush did to go to war, to now saying he wouldn't have gone to war?

I'm confused.

[agcatter]

.....you and the entire electorate

[Gabu]

So, let me get this straight, Kerry voted for the right to go to war, but then said he meant to it as a threat, to be followed up by saying he would have made the same decision as Bush did to go to war, to now saying he wouldn't have gone to war?

I'm confused.

Well, look on the bright side: at least you probably agree with one of his stances.

[agcatter]

Me too.  That would net the GOP Senate seats in Fla, NC, and SD.  Do it Senator Kerry.

[MODU]

So, let me get this straight, Kerry voted for the right to go to war, but then said he meant to it as a threat, to be followed up by saying he would have made the same decision as Bush did to go to war, to now saying he wouldn't have gone to war?

I'm confused.

Well, look on the bright side: at least you probably agree with one of his stances.

*dies laughin*  Yes, I'm sure he's stated my point of view at one point.  

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The reenlistment rate is unprecedented, so I guess there are people who would rather finish the job their fellow soldiers died for.

Defending the streets of Baghdad is part of defending America.

Maybe for the Regular Army, the reenlistment rate is unprecedented, but the National Guard (at least here in SC) is sucking wind.  They are going to be understrength here for the first time in over a decade and that was when their authorized strength was about 60% greater than it is now.  Also, if I remember correctly, if you get out of the regular forces at the first opportunity, you have to have a reserve obligation.  Given the way that Bush keeps calling up Reserve and Guard troops instead of increasing the size of our regular forces, I know that I'd rather just as soon get my service time done with than risk being pulled out of civilian life for what seems to be an inevitable call back to Iraq, so that may account for some of the high reenlistment rate of the regular forces.  Better to serve now and get it over with than to be wrenched out of civilian life at an unpredictable time.

We have an NG artilery unit from here that is extremely unhappy that they've been called up to do convoy duty in Iraq.  They've had to put the unit on lockdown before they shipped out because of discipline problems.

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/nation/9703073.htm

There is no questuion that Bush has totally botched Iraq.
The question is, "Will Kerry do better?"