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 1970’s.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.