Posted on 09/29/2004 8:00:45 AM PDT by finnman69
GMA
John Kerry was apparently on Good Morning America and The Note snippets this baffling exchange:
DIANE SAWYER: Was the war in Iraq worth it?
JOHN KERRY: We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today.
DS: So it was not worth it.
JK: We should not — it depends on the outcome ultimately — and that depends on the leadership. And we need better leadership to get the job done successfully, but I would not have gone to war knowing that there was no imminent threat — there were no weapons of mass destruction — there was no connection of Al Qaeda — to Saddam Hussein! The president misled the American people — plain and simple. Bottom line.
DS: So if it turns out okay, it was worth it?
JK: No.
DS: But right now it wasn't?p>
JK: It was a mistake to do what he did, but we have to succeed now that we've done what he's — I mean look — we have to succeed. But was it worth — as you asked the question — $200 billion and taking the focus off of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? That's the question. The test of the presidency was whether or not you should have gone to war to get rid of him. I think, had the inspectors continued, had we done other things — there were plenty of ways to keep the pressure on Saddam Hussein.
DS: But no way to get rid of him.
JK: Oh, sure there were. Oh, yes there were. Absolutely.
DS: So you're saying that today, even if Saddam Hussein were in power today it would be a better thing — you would prefer that . . .
JK: No, I would not prefer that. And Diane — don't twist here. Notice how Kerry loses his cool and accuses the questioner of twisting; Is this guy thin-skinned or what?
In tomorrow's debate, Kerry will benefit from lowered expectations because his image among voters is something of a caricature right now. But he still has to do better than he did on GMA. You can bet President Bush has a list of zingers that he will deploy if Kerry gives him an opening.
It's working. I do feel sorry for Kerry. He is so pathetic.
Let him make a statement like this, to which President Bush could respond something to the effect of, "I'd like to answer the junior Senator from Massachusetts, but I really don't know which of his positions to rebut."
That's why I think 3 debates will only hurt John Carrion. The more air time he has, the more he will sound confused or incoherent.
"DIANE SAWYER: Was the war in Iraq worth it?
JOHN KERRY: We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today."
Even if this was true, and it's not, how in the holy heck would sKerry explain that "knowing the information that we know today" could have remotely changed the decisions made nearly two years ago if we didn't know it till now. We couldn't have known what we didn't know then but know now if you're John Kerry which I'm glad I'm not. I have so much less to explain than he does.
The debates are going to be like the auditions for The Last Comic Standing which in this case will be sKerry out cold on the temperature controlled floor in poor "standing".
Mumble, mumble, munb.....
Reminiscent of the familiar routine: "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."
Your focus is right-on.
I am going to the polls on November 2nd, as an American, voting for the man who will do all he can to save us from annihilation from the terrorists and from the appeasement fever suffered by some democracts. I am voting for George W. Bush.
If we don't take this vital step - our children (I have 5) will have no future. No matter what happens politically in Congress in regard to domestic matters, it won't matter a bit if America is gone.
Now, if you want to contend that this did, in fact, happen, come with some evidence. Otherwise, you can take your spew elsewhere. No sale.
Racist!
According to the wife of one of my friends who was present, "The man (the Dem) was just falling down drunk but people coming into the bar came up and greeted him as if he were an important person instead of a sloppy, overweight, ugly-talking drunk, with really bad shoes and dandruff."
She thinks it was "drunk talk" and the Dem thought he was being clever and funny. None of the other customers stayed to listen to him after greeting him.
If Senator Kerry is delusional enough to do such a thing I believe that President Bush would be justified in saying that if the American people preferred someone who would sink that low they could have him but he, Bush, would not stay in the same room with him.
It might liven it up if you had the chain-saw wielder punching out the windsurfer with two sets of SS men duking it out.
"A high ranking Iraqi fedayeen soldier attended at least one pre planning 9/11 meeting with AQ."
I knew this was fishy, because I had read a bit about this claim before. When I asked Peach who she meant by this statement, she replied "Ahmed Hikmat Shakir."
This is what the 9-11 Commission actually says about Shakir:
"Mihdhar was met at the Kuala Lumpur airport by Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, an Iraqi national. Reports that he was a lieutenant colonel in the Iraqi Fedayeen have turned out to be incorrect. They were based on a confusion of Shakir's identity with that of an Iraqi Fedayeen colonel with a similar name, who was later (in September 2001) in Iraq at the same time Shakir was in police custody in Qatar."
Looks like the Commission says exactly the opposite of what Peach claims it says.
Are the 'Rats ever going to regret initiating their run for their presidential nomination as early as they did? The televised debates amongst themselves made Bush bashing posh and got their base salivating. They've painted themselves--and Kerry--into a corner from which they can't emerge. The 'Rats would have been better off waiting, hoping for Bush to display a valid weakness. And if that wasn't going to happen, they would have at least avoided shooting themselves in the head.
"I would have known then what we could not have known until we went to Iraq...Saddam had no WMD. So I would not have gone to war if I had it to do over. And even if we win now, it is not worth it because we know now he had no WMD. But now that we are in Iraq we have to win and that is unfortunate."
Or maybe he is saying:
"Even though I thought then that Saddam had WMD. I would have, along with the United Nations, chosen to do nothing about it. Still I am glad we got rid of Saddam. Yet we never had to. And though I did not know it at the time, now that I do know it, I would not do it. Get rid of Saddam, that is."
Yeah. Something like that.
Ignoring everything else about Kerry, his explanations (flip-flops) ignore the facts of justification/prelude, prosecution and aftermath to war. He was 'with' the president on the justification but today says the president mislead (lied) on WMDs; Saddam was not a threat, which, when argued with the outcome sounds ridiculous; he claims advisers were 'fired' for opposing points of view; he claims flip-flops on saying that the UN would not be involved, then was; and so on.
For prosecution, he claims that events that developed on the ground should have somehow been divined, the fierce republican guard cutting and running, namely the foreign fighter terrorist magnet that developed in the sunni triangle, what he claims is a illegitimate Prime Minister and interim government; and the impossibility of elections in January.
I cannot see how all of this can be distilled to a rational message.
And I still ask the question where does the man stand on the war?
The reference from Peach was to a "pre-planning meeting" so you debunked something she didn't say. Good job.
It is quite likely that Saddam was very aware that 911 was coming. Maybe even precisely.
Hi. I'll respond on the thread in case someone else wants to check the article.
Think you can get it on google by typing the author's name and article title.
It may still be on Kerry's website. His campaign thinks it flatters Kerry. www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2003_0601.html
If someone can tell me how to activate a site address so you can go to it, please tell me!
I had the same reaction, i.e., he mentioned the cost of the war in $ but not the lives. This guy is inhuman--could he actually be a space alien?
"In tomorrow's debate, Kerry will benefit from lowered expectations because his image among voters is something of a caricature right now."
Lowered expectations are only good if you can in fact exceed them.
I tend to look for more that a characture when I vote, although ayt present, that has what Kerry has reduced himself to.
Here's the question I would ask Kerry. If you believed Saddam had WMD, what would you do about it? And if he does not answer, "Invade Iraq and topple Saddam." Then by any sane measure, Kerry should be toast. Because he saying he would leave us open to another 9/11.
How simple is that?
Since you are purposefully being so obtuse, read my #170, then come back with your spew.
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.