Kerry Says He Wouldn't Have Ousted Saddam

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

If I understand what Kerry is saying (at least is saying today) it is that given what he knew then, he would have made the choice to invade Iraq but he would have made better preperations but that given what we know now, he wouldn't have invaded Iraq.  It's a very sensible position that he should have been using at least three months ago.  I don't like Bush, but Kerry hasn't given me a reason to believe that he would do better, and given how poorly I think of Rumsfeld and company, that's saying an awful lot.

[DarthKosh]

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.

If I understand what Kerry is saying (at least is saying today) it is that given what he knew then, he would have made the choice to invade Iraq but he would have made better preperations but that given what we know now, he wouldn't have invaded Iraq.  It's a very sensible position that he should have been using at least three months ago.  I don't like Bush, but Kerry hasn't given me a reason to believe that he would do better, and given how poorly I think of Rumsfeld and company, that's saying an awful lot.

He said that he would have not invaded and if he is elected he would cut and run.

[NHPolitico]

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.

Works the same with jokes. There has to be the tiniest bit of truth or it's not funny. Jokes about Mother Theresa being a serial killer aren't funny, for example.

[NHPolitico]

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

That's a good line. Bush should use it.  

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Bush simply needs to create an ad listing:

1) Kerry's "No" vote for the Gulf War I
2) Kerry's "Yes" vote for Gulf War II
3) Kerry's "No" vote for the funding of troops in Iraq, followed by "I actually voted for it before I voted against it."
4) Kerry's "Knowing everything we now know, even without WMD, I still would have made the same choice as Bush made"
5) Kerry's "I would not have removed Saddam."

---

Run this new ad, along with another ad stating Kerry's voting record on defense, along with the Swift Boat ad reciting Kerry's '72 Senate Testimony.

With those 3 Ads and those 3 ads only, Bush wins in a landslide.

[Democratic Hawk]

I'll always maintain that Saddam needed to be ousted and feel that his threat was more regional than global - but look what is arising following his demise, a surgence of Islamic terrorism, which he as a secular Ba'athist suppressed.

Remember the West supported Saddam against Iran during the 1980s and supported the Mujahedin during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. By doing so, didn't we, proverbiallly, sh**t in our own nest?

I can't even say for certain if the Arab world is suitable for functioning and effective liberal democracies.

Dave

[The Duke]

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.

Do you even know any soldiers?  Have you ever met one?

They want to FINISH the job.  No matter what the sacrifice, no matter what the cost, they want nothing but to finish what was started.

[Smash255]

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.

Bush also flipped flopped on Homeland Security and Osama Bin Laden

[A18]

Those are policies. It's having no principles that will kill you.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I actually think he's being honest and that's what's hurting him.   First off, he signed a bill giving Bush authority (not a war declaration), and Bush made three promises 1.True coalition  2.finish inspections  3.exhaust all other options.  If Bush did all three, and Saddam still wasn't budging, that's when Kerry thought we should go to war.  Alas, Bush broke all 3 promises, and took us in prematurely and underequipped.  When asked "looking at what has happened, would you still sign the authorization bill" he said yes.  Why?  Cause if he knew what was going to happen, he'd make sure that all 3 of those promises were actually fulfilled.  But if all three of those promises Bush made to Congress he kept, we would've never invaded Iraq.  We would've found no WMD's, no Al Queda connections, no nothing.  You think the American public would still want to go in, knowing none of these threats existed.  Hell no.  Kerry's position is confusing, but I understand it fully.  He would've signed the bill, exhausted the options to prove the lack of a threat, then never go into war.  

As for the $87 billion, Kerry offered Congressionial Republicans a good way to pay for this, rolling back the tax cuts for the rich.  They said no, so Kerry voted no.  I agree with him, that's $87 billion I'm going to be paying for in a few years.  The economy was already bad enough.  Besides, why the hell were we funding troops and getting them equipment...in the middle of the war?  Isn't that something customarily done before you go into battle?  And if Bush had sat down and thought about this invasion a little more, we would've never gotten to the point where the troops needed more funding.  WE HAD NO POST-WAR PLAN!!!  When you go into war, you go ready.  You don't do it half-way, decide in the middle of the fighting, "Oh, they weren't prepared properly!  Let's just conjure up some money and send it over there, so it looks like we care about our troops!  Not that the economy is all that well, but what hell!?  Oh yea, let's make sure we bash the hell out of anyone who opposes this kind of action.  Yea, then we can stay in the White House and invade Iran and North Korea and start WWIII.  GOOD F'IN IDEA!!!"

Anyway.  Kerry is like Jimmy Carter.  He's too good a man to be president.  I am dissapointed he probably wont win, yea, but with no threat of losing his job (he's out in 4 no matter what), I think we'll get a taste of the real GWB, and we wont like it.  

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Anyway.  Kerry is like Jimmy Carter.  He's too good a man to be president.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Kerry an admitted war criminal?

[A18]

Bush said he'd do three things...yeah, I'll take that.

Problem is, Kerry says he'd still vote for the authorization knowing Bush wouldn't do those things.

Now he's bashing Iraqi prime minister Allawi. Nice job "reaching out to our allies," right?

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Bush said he'd do three things...yeah, I'll take that.

Problem is, Kerry says he'd still vote for the authorization knowing Bush wouldn't do those things.

Now he's bashing Iraqi prime minister Allawi. Nice job "reaching out to our allies," right?

Cause he's right along with Bush acting as if all well in that country.  

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Anyway.  Kerry is like Jimmy Carter.  He's too good a man to be president.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Kerry an admitted war criminal?

No, he rigthly accused Vietnam soldiers of war crimes.  

[A18]

He admitted to them himself.

Just how many villages did this guy burn down?

All is well in most parts of Iraq. Allawi is a hero; he's risking his life to give a speech on behalf of America and democracy.

[patrick1]

He admitted to them himself.

Just how many villages did this guy burn down?

Kerry did not admit to burning villages nor did he see any crimes commited.  How were they so widespread then?  Let's keep it above the belt Phillip.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Anyway.  Kerry is like Jimmy Carter.  He's too good a man to be president.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Kerry an admitted war criminal?

No, he rigthly accused Vietnam soldiers of war crimes.  

Then you'll have to help me read and interpret the following statement.  After all, I'm just a ignorant christian fundamentalist from the South who needs someone like John Kerry to spell things out for me and to keep me safe from terrorists:

"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down."  (John Kerry, April 18, 1971)

[A18]

He admitted to them himself.

Just how many villages did this guy burn down?

Kerry did not admit to burning villages nor did he see any crimes commited.  How were they so widespread then?  Let's keep it above the belt Phillip.

Wrong. He admitted to burning down villages. It's on tape.

[ATFFL]

He admitted to them himself.

Just how many villages did this guy burn down?

Kerry did not admit to burning villages nor did he see any crimes commited.  How were they so widespread then?  Let's keep it above the belt Phillip.

Wrong. He admitted to burning down villages. It's on tape.

http://hnn.us/articles/3552.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Anyway.  Kerry is like Jimmy Carter.  He's too good a man to be president.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Kerry an admitted war criminal?

No, he rigthly accused Vietnam soldiers of war crimes.  

Then you'll have to help me read and interpret the following statement.  After all, I'm just a ignorant christian fundamentalist from the South who needs someone like John Kerry to spell things out for me and to keep me safe from terrorists:

"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down."  (John Kerry, April 18, 1971)

He was ordered to.  It's not like he decided to sneak out one night.