Skip to comments.Kerry Flip-Flops on Iraq AGAIN
Posted on 09/29/2004 6:22:02 AM PDT by mrs9x
Kerry said this in an interview today posted on Yahoo:
"We should not have gone into Iraq knowing today what we know," Kerry told ABC. "Knowing there was no imminent threat to America, knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, knowing there was no connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein, I would not have voted to support war."
Nope.. he said he would vote to "authorize the war" not actually invade.
This guy I think lives in alternative universe, where truth is whatever you think it is. He needs to see a shrink and get on some meds.
I can't keep track anymore... The Debate moderator needs to be Regis so that he can ask Kerry: "Is that your Final Answer"
Yep, its hard to keep track of what he says from one day to the next. Who knows what John F*ckin' will say in the debate tomorrow night?
Wait, wait...is this the latest flip flop? Seriously, I must've missed a flop in there somewhere because I thought this was old news. Or is it a new flip flop?
Well ain't 20/20 hindsight a wonderful thing! Knowing what we know now, we would have grounded all planes the morning of 9-11! What an idiotic statement!
A total flip-flop from August press conference when he said in substance 'knowing everything we know now, I still would have voted for the war.'
He MUST get hammered on this.
Why isn't Drudge linking to this yet? This is a huge potential story.
Spread the word, people.
Kerry supported regime change in Iraq in 1998. Before there was a 9-11. Before there was any discussions of an imminent threat by WMD. Kerry hasn't kept his story straight for about a week. Besides, the case for war made by BOTH Kerry and Bush, was not about imminent threat of WMD, but about the future possibility this madman would get them.
"Nope.. he said he would vote to "authorize the war" not actually invade."
An oft repeated lie by Kerry.
The comment above, to me, reads as if he would not have authorized the use of force had he known that Saddam didn't have WMDs....which is contrary to his position earlier this year.
No, he would have given the president the authority.
Wait until his next advisor says that's the wrong position to take. The laughs keep rolling in from the Kerry campaign.
Why doesn't this surprise me? This man cannot be allowed to take up residence in the White House. He should be going to the Big House for his traitorous actions in the 1970s.
This was in a Yahoo article posted today...I don't have the link to it, there is another thread on it here on FR but nobody noticed this little nugget in the piece.
And now he says he wouldn't have supported the war "knowing what we know now."
Decision by hindsight. Yeah. That's what we want.
A President who lets things happen, then says "Well, if I had known......"
Should America be in the business of "authorizing" war, letting dictators continue to flout their agreements and deceive international observers and then do nothing?
If someone votes to authorize a war they are voting for war, period.
One does not "authorize" a war unless one feels that it is justified.
Senator Kerry wants to play semantics and pretend that he's tough on America's enemies while simultaneously pretending that he's against fighting them.
I hope he continues to make logic-chopping, idiotic and pedantic statements like this - because it reveals you and your buddies for the vacillating, blame-America-first scum you are.
It actually is another flip-flop as well....Kerry said the other day that the vote was to "go to the UN." Now, he is conceding that the vote was about whether to go to war or not with Iraq. So we have multiple flip-flops.
I don't understand the stupidity of this liberal argument.
The FACT is we DID NOT KNOW THEN WHAT WE KNOW TODAY.
Kerry should change his name to dick.
Lighten up people, I have the right to change my mind!
Hey, the election is not for another 5 weeks or so.
John F Heinz
E-mail this to Drudge.
The only way to do that is to tell each audience what they want to hear that day.
Kerry is a compulsive liar.
I emailed this to drudge...he'll take a look at it.
And then there was this one: "You bet I might have!" He said it with great conviction too.
If you are correct, please point to the bill where Kerry "voted to support war," a bill he how claims he would have voted against.
I have been saying that for months, he is not quite right in the head.
There will be a debate watching party at the Sugar Land office of Tom DeLay. He won't be there, he will be in DC. But there will be MANY conservatives there for the party. I should be fun. FreepMail me if you want location, time, etc.
yes, in John Kerryland, American will be a land of "do-overs" where we'll have the option to go back and redo anything that didn't turn out just right. and in his fantasy life that will start with 11/2/04 when his first do-over attempt will be to reverse the election results. just watch.
That distinction makes no sense in the context of his most recent comments. He said "....I wouldn't have voted to support the war", which makes absolutely no sense under your spin because there was no specific vote to "support" the war. "Support" and "authorize" have to mean the same thing.
Alternatively, the idea that he supported making threats but not actually going to war is even worse. The U.S. cannot make threats that it does not intend to carry out, or it loses all credibility with respect to the use of force. If we tell Iran "do X or else", and they do X but we do nothing, every drop of credibility we gained on the seriousness of our threats evaporates.
You don't vote to threaten war if you don't support going to war.
Kerry wants to look at it from an ex post perspective, but we have to look at it from an ex ante perspective<<<
As most reasonable people will do! WHich leaves all liberals out of the relm of reason.
We have a lot of rodents like that in australia, we call 'em kangaroos. Not many hopping around trying for president though. Why dont you get him tested for mental disease.
"It actually is another flip-flop as well....Kerry said the other day that the vote was to "go to the UN." Now, he is conceding that the vote was about whether to go to war or not with Iraq. So we have multiple flip-flops."
This is a good point. Just when I thought Kerry couldn't get any worse, he issues a flip-flop INSIDE a flip-flop. What a douche.
"Gee Mr. Peabody we should not have gone into France knowing today what we know. Knowing there was no imminent threat to America, knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, knowing there was no connection between Japan, 12/7 and Adolph Hitler, I would not have voted to support war."
We now return you to our regular programming.......
NO. What he means is that he would only "authorize" war if he is sure we aren't going to war. If we definitely plan to go to war, then he won't authorize it. Am I right? I'm confused.
I'm wondering if Citizen Kahn just might be a troll. Reasons: His semantic arguement is Dem spin 101; he signed up just 4 days ago; and his tag line," Strength through Community" sounds like it came right out of the commie slogan book.
"Well ain't 20/20 hindsight a wonderful thing!"
Anyone with their head in their @$$ has perfect hindsight!
I feel you would be more at home with the DUmmies, judging by this and other posts made by you.
Bingo! I've been tracking some of the posts made by this unknown.
to Always Right but not always complete).
Kerry voted against the first Gulf War in the first place. That is why he had no leg to stand on with his later position. Were it up to Kerry, there would have been no Desert Storm.
welcome to FreeRepublic----you have other 'rodents' beside the 'roos---the ones that stole your firearms not too long ago come to my mind---kerry will be toast shortly