Posted on 10/01/2004 12:10:04 AM PDT by West Coast Conservative
KERRY: Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?
I believe that when you know something's going wrong, you make it right. That's what I learned in Vietnam. When I came back from that war I saw that it was wrong. Some people don't like the fact that I stood up to say no, but I did. And that's what I did with that vote. And I'm going to lead those troops to victory.
LEHRER: All right, new question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.
Speaking of Vietnam, you spoke to Congress in 1971, after you came back from Vietnam, and you said, quote, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"
LEHRER: Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?
KERRY: No, and they don't have to, providing we have the leadership that we put -- that I'm offering.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I have already posted this exchange in two different threads. :)
In the same debate. This is why I'm not really worried about any lackluster performance from the President. Kerry's all over the map. Anyone paying attention would notice that. Bush was consistent.
KERRY: Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?
No, Senator. The mistake is not how you talked. The mistake was how you voted.
So let's rephrase your great line:
"I voted not to support our troops during a time of war, and I think the President made a mistake in going to war, though I told Diane Sawyer it really depends on the outcome. Which is worse?
We spent months trying to appease Europe's finicky attitude. We spent months trying to do everything to their liking, and at the end, France and Germany pretty much said "well, there's nothing you can say to make us act differently. Maybe if you gave us some contracts...?". They would have them if they just went along. We probably wouldn't even have pressed the issue of them being on the take from Saddam. Because they decided to be hard-headed about it (a term America is frequently accused of being), they're in a worse position than if they had just went along. Sounds more like we tried to be reasonable, but two crazy countries thought they had a right to get money for stopping illegal activities that they got money for. Doesn't work that way.
His promise to "hold a conference" about it was lame. What more is there to talk about? We're not going to reward countries for bad behavior, and they're not sending troops no matter what. We have nothing to discuss. Why would they send troops to something Kerry himself says is a quagmire situation (a point Bush nailed him on)? If swing voters are paying attention, that should've made a light go off in their heads.
That's EXACTLY how I see it.
How can anyone say Kerry won anything? The guys an idiot and his words prove it.
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.