Post all your Kerry Flip Flops!!!!


KERRY'S YASSER WOE


Flip Democratic presidential nominee-to-be John Kerry called Yasser Arafat a "statesman" and a "role model" in a 1997 book that Kerry cites as proof of his own foresight about foreign policy.

..."Terrorist organizations with specific political agendas may be encouraged and emboldened by Yasser Arafat's transformation from outlaw to statesman," Kerry wrote in "The New War," now out of print.

Kerry added that terrorists "whose only object is to disrupt society require no such 'role models [as Arafat].' "

Flop...
Kerry expressed the opposite view eight days ago, when he told Jewish leaders in New York that he shares President Bush's belief that Arafat must be isolated because he's not a "partner for peace" - much less a statesman.





http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/20162.htm

When Senator John Kerry was speaking to Jewish leaders a few days ago, he said Israel's construction of a barrier between it and Palestinian territories was a legitimate act of self-defense. But in October, he told an Arab-American group that it was "provocative and counterproductive" and a "barrier to peace."

On Feb. 5, Mr. Kerry reacted to Massachusetts' highest court's decision legalizing same-sex marriages by saying, "I personally believe the court is dead wrong." But when asked on Feb. 24 why he believed the decision was not correct, he shot back, "I didn't say it wasn't."

Throughout his campaign, Mr. Kerry has shown a knack for espousing both sides of divisive issues. Earlier in the race he struggled to square his vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq with his loud criticism of the war and his eventual vote against $87 billion for military operations and reconstruction.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/06/politics/campaign/06KERR.html?hp

Bush in 2000:

Question: "So if a state were voting on gay marriage, you would suggest to that state not to approve it?"

BUSH: "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into."

Bush in 2004: Well, we all know his 2004 stance.

"Wednesday, Mar. 14, 2001
President Bush may be reneging on his campaign promises on air pollution, but in doing so he may also be presenting the American people with a more honest depiction of its environmental dilemma. Following intensive lobbying by the energy industry and a policy review by Vice President Cheney, the White House on Tuesday backed away from a Bush campaign pledge to regulate power plants' output of carbon dioxide — the gas whose massive buildup inside the Earth's atmosphere is believed by most scientists to create the "greenhouse effect" that causes global warming. "

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,102563,00.html

Just like typical leftists, neither of the two above posters can follow directions.

Of course they can't. They both claim to be moderates but their postings are nothing but moderate.

http://www.gop.com/kerryvskerry/:D

http://www.gop.com/kerryvskerry/backup.asp#1


Round 1: Flip-Flopped On Iraq War



Kerry Voted For Authorization To Use Force In Iraq. (H.J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kerry Voted Yea.)



In First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President’s Action In Iraq. KERRY: “George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.” (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/4/03)



Kerry Later Claimed He Voted “To Threaten” Use Of Force In Iraq. “I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Announcement Of Presidential Candidacy, Mount Pleasant, SC, 9/2/03)



Now, Kerry Says He Is Anti-War Candidate. CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it’s been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?” KERRY: “I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 1/6/04)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~2~Back To Fight
Round 2: Kerry Flip-Flopped On Eliminating Marriage Penalty For Middle Class



Kerry Said He Will Fight To Keep Tax Relief For Married Couples. “Howard Dean and Gephardt are going to put the marriage penalty back in place. So if you get married in America, we’re going to charge you more taxes. I do not want to do that.” (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 10/23/03)



Said Democrats Fought To End Marriage Penalty Tax. “We fought hard to get rid of the marriage penalty.” (MSNBC’s “News Live,” 7/31/03)



But, In 1998, Kerry Voted Against Eliminating Marriage Penalty Relief For Married Taxpayers With Combined Incomes Less Than $50,000 Per Year, Saving Taxpayers $46 Billion Over 10 Years. (S. 1415, CQ Vote #154: Rejected 48-50: R 5-49; D 43-1, 6/10/98, Kerry Voted Yea)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~3~Back To Fight
Round 3: Flip-Flopped On Patriot Act



Kerry Voted For Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was passed nearly unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and 357-66 in the House. (H.R. 3162, CQ Vote #313: Passed 98-1: R 49-0; D 48-1; I 1-0, 10/25/01, Kerry Voted Yea)



Kerry Used To Defend His Vote. “Most of [The Patriot Act] has to do with improving the transfer of information between CIA and FBI, and it has to do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on September 11th.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Town Hall Meeting, Manchester, NH, 8/6/03)



Now, Kerry Attacks Patriot Act. “We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time. I’ve been a District Attorney and I know that what law enforcement needs are real tools not restrictions on American’s basic rights.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Iowa State University, Iowa City, IA, 12/1/03)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~4~Back To Fight
Round 4: Kerry Took BOTH Sides On First Gulf War



Kerry Took BOTH Sides In First Gulf War In Separate Letters To Same Constituent. “Rather than take a side--albeit the one he thought was most expedient--Kerry actually stood on both sides of the first Gulf war, much like he did this time around. Consider this ‘Notebook’ item from TNR’s March 25, 1991 issue, which ran under the headline ‘Same Senator, Same Constituent’: ‘Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ... to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war.’ --letter from Senator John Kerry to Wallace Carter of Newton Centre, Massachusetts, dated January 22 [1991] ‘Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush’s response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf.’ --Senator Kerry to Wallace Carter, January 31 [1991]” (Noam Scheiber, “Noam Scheiber’s Daily Journal of Politics, The New Republic Online, 1/28/04)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~5~Back To Fight
Round 5: Flip-Flopped On Gay Marriage Amendment



In 2002, Kerry Signed Letter “Urging” MA Legislature To Reject Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage. “We rarely comment on issues that are wholly within the jurisdiction of the General Court, but there are occasions when matters pending before you are of such significance to all residents of the Commonwealth that we think it appropriate for us to express our opinion. One such matter is the proposed Constitutional amendment that would prohibit or seriously inhibit any legal recognition whatsoever of same-sex relationships. We believe it would be a grave error for Massachusetts to enshrine in our Constitution a provision which would have such a negative effect on so many of our fellow residents. … We are therefore united in urging you to reject this Constitutional amendment and avoid stigmatizing so many of our fellow citizens who do not deserve to be treated in such a manner.” (Sen. John Kerry, et al, Letter To Members Of The Massachusetts Legislature, 7/12/02)



Now, In 2004, Kerry Won’t Rule Out Supporting Similar Amendment. “Asked if he would support a state constitutional amendment barring gay and lesbian marriages, Kerry didn’t rule out the possibility. ‘I’ll have to see what language there is,’ he said.” (Susan Milligan, “Kerry Says GOP May Target Him On ‘Wedge Issue,’” The Boston Globe, 2/6/04)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~6~Back To Fight
Round 6: Flip-Flopped On Attacking President During Time Of War



In March 2003, Kerry Promised Not To Attack President When War Began. “Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts … said he will cease his complaints once the shooting starts. ‘It’s what you owe the troops,’ said a statement from Kerry, a Navy veteran of the Vietnam War. ‘I remember being one of those guys and reading news reports from home. If America is at war, I won’t speak a word without measuring how it’ll sound to the guys doing the fighting when they’re listening to their radios in the desert.’” (Glen Johnson, “Democrats On The Stump Plot Their War Rhetoric,” The Boston Globe, 3/11/03)



But Weeks Later, With Troops Just Miles From Baghdad, Kerry Broke His Pledge. “‘What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States,’ Kerry said in a speech at the Peterborough Town Library. Despite pledging two weeks ago to cool his criticism of the administration once war began, Kerry unleashed a barrage of criticism as US troops fought within 25 miles of Baghdad.” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Says Us Needs Its Own ‘Regime Change,’” The Boston Globe, 4/3/03)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~7~Back To Fight
Round 7: Flip-Flopped On Death Penalty For Terrorists



In 1996, Kerry Attacked Governor Bill Weld For Supporting Death Penalty For Terrorists. KERRY: “Your policy would amount to a terrorist protection policy. Mine would put them in jail.” (1996 Massachusetts Senate Debate, 9/16/96)



In 1996, Kerry Said, “You Can Change Your Mind On Things, But Not On Life-And-Death Issues.” (Timothy J. Connolly, “The ‘Snoozer’ Had Some Life,” [Worcester, MA] Telegram & Gazette, 7/3/96)



But, In 2002, Kerry Said He Supported Death Penalty For Terrorists. KERRY: “The law of the land is the law of the land, but I have also said that I am for the death penalty for terrorists because terrorists have declared war on your country.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 12/1/02)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~8~Back To Fight
Round 8: Flip-Flopped On No Child Left Behind



Kerry Voted For No Child Left Behind Act. (H.R. 1, CQ Vote #371: Adopted 87-10: R 44-3; D 43-6; I 0-1, 12/18/01, Kerry Voted Yea)



But Now Kerry Is Attacking No Child Left Behind As “Mockery.” “Between now and the time I’m sworn in January 2005, I’m going to use every day to make this president accountable for making a mockery of the words ‘No Child Left Behind.’” (Holly Ramer, “Kerry Wants To Make ‘Environmental Justice’ A Priority,” The Associated Press, 4/22/03)



Kerry Trashed NCLB As ‘Unfunded Mandate’ With ‘Laudable’ Goals. “Kerry referred to [No Child Left Behind] as an ‘unfunded mandate’ with ‘laudable’ goals. ‘Without the resources, education reform is a sham,’ Kerry said. ‘I can’t wait to crisscross this country and hold this president accountable for making a mockery of the words “no child left behind.”‘” (Matt Leon, “Sen. Kerry In Tune With Educators,” The [Quincy, MA] Patriot Ledger, 7/11/03)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~9~Back To Fight
Round 9: Flip-Flopped On Affirmative Action



In 1992, Kerry Called Affirmative Action “Inherently Limited And Divisive.” “[W]hile praising affirmative action as ‘one kind of progress’ that grew out of civil rights court battles, Kerry said the focus on a rights-based agenda has ‘inadvertently driven most of our focus in this country not to the issue of what is happening to the kids who do not get touched by affirmative action, but … toward an inherently limited and divisive program which is called affirmative action.’ That agenda is limited, he said, because it benefits segments of black and minority populations, but not all. And it is divisive because it creates a ‘perception and a reality of reverse discrimination that has actually engendered racism.’” (Lynne Duke, “Senators Seek Serious Dialogue On Race,” The Washington Post, 4/8/92)



In 2004, Kerry Denied Ever Having Called Affirmative Action “Divisive.” CNN’s KELLY WALLACE: “We caught up with the Senator, who said he never called affirmative action divisive, and accused Clark of playing politics.” SEN. KERRY: “That’s not what I said. I said there are people who believe that. And I said mend it, don’t end it. He’s trying to change what I said, but you can go read the quote. I said very clearly I have always voted for it. I’ve always supported it. I’ve never, ever condemned it. I did what Jim Clyburn did and what Bill Clinton did, which is mend it. And Jim Clyburn wouldn’t be supporting it if it were otherwise. So let’s not have any politics here. Let’s keep the truth.” (CNN’s “Inside Politics,” 1/30/04)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~10~Back To Fight
Round 10: Flip-Flopped On Ethanol



Kerry Twice Voted Against Tax Breaks For Ethanol. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #44: Rejected 48-52: R 11-32; D 37-20, 3/23/93, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #68: Motion Agreed To 55-43: R 2-40; D 53-3, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea)



Kerry Voted Against Ethanol Mandates. (H.R. 4624, CQ Vote #255: Motion Agreed To 51-50: R 19-25; D 31-25, 8/3/94, Kerry Voted Nay)



Kerry Voted Twice To Increase Liability On Ethanol, Making It Equal To Regular Gasoline. (S. 517, CQ Vote #87: Motion Agreed To 57-42: R 38-10; D 18-32; I 1-0, 4/25/02 Kerry Voted Nay; S. 14, CQ Vote #208: Rejected 38-57: R 9-40; D 28-17; I 1-0, 6/5/03, Kerry Voted Yea)



On The Campaign Trail, Though, Kerry Is For Ethanol. KERRY: “I’m for ethanol, and I think it’s a very important partial ingredient of the overall mix of alternative and renewable fuels we ought to commit to.” (MSNBC/DNC, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Des Moines, IA, 11/24/03)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~11~Back To Fight
Round 11: Flip-Flopped On Cuba Sanctions



Senator Kerry Has Long Voted Against Stronger Cuba Sanctions. (H.R. 927, CQ Vote #489, Motion Rejected 59-36: R 50-2; D 9-34, 10/17/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 955, CQ Vote #183: Rejected 38-61: R 5-49; D 33-12, 7/17/97, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1234, CQ Vote #189, Motion Agreed To 55-43: R 43-10; D 12-33, 6/30/99, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2549, CQ Vote #137: Motion Agreed To 59-41: R 52-3; D 7-38, 6/20/00, Kerry Voted Nay)



In 2000, Kerry Said Florida Politics Is Only Reason Cuba Sanctions Still In Place. “Senator John F. Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat and member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said in an interview that a reevaluation of relations with Cuba was ‘way overdue.’ ‘We have a frozen, stalemated, counterproductive policy that is not in humanitarian interests nor in our larger credibility interest in the region,’ Kerry said. … ‘It speaks volumes about the problems in the current American electoral process. … The only reason we don’t reevaluate the policy is the politics of Florida.’” (John Donnelly, “Policy Review Likely On Cuba,” The Boston Globe, 4/9/00)



Now Kerry Panders To Cuban Vote, Saying He Would Not Lift Embargo Against Cuba. TIM RUSSERT: “Would you consider lifting sanctions, lifting the embargo against Cuba?” SEN. KERRY: “Not unilaterally, not now, no.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/31/03)



Kerry Does Not Support “Opening Up The Embargo Wily Nilly.” “Kerry said he believes in ‘engagement’ with the communist island nation but that does not mean, ‘Open up the dialogue.’ He believes it ‘means travel and perhaps even remittances or cultural exchanges’ but he does not support ‘opening up the embargo wily nilly.’” (Daniel A. Ricker, “Kerry Says Bush Did Not Build A ‘Legitimate Coalition’ In Iraq,” The Miami Herald, 11/25/03)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~12~Back To Fight
Round 12: Flip-Flopped On NAFTA



Kerry Voted For NAFTA. (H.R. 3450, CQ Vote #395: Passed 61-38: R 34-10; D 27-28, 11/20/93, Kerry Voted Yea)



Kerry Recognized NAFTA Is Our Future. “‘NAFTA recognizes the reality of today’s economy - globalization and technology,’ Kerry said. ‘Our future is not in competing at the low-level wage job; it is in creating high-wage, new technology jobs based on our skills and our productivity.’” (John Aloysius Farrell, “Senate’s OK Finalizes NAFTA Pact,” The Boston Globe, 11/21/93)



Now, Kerry Expresses Doubt About NAFTA. “Kerry, who voted for NAFTA in 1993, expressed some doubt about the strength of free-trade agreements. ‘If it were before me today, I would vote against it because it doesn’t have environmental or labor standards in it,’ he said.” (David Lightman, “Democrats Battle For Labor’s Backing,” Hartford Courant, 8/6/03)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~13~Back To Fight
Round 13: Flip-Flopped On Double Taxation Of Dividends



December 2002: Kerry Favored Ending Double Taxation Of Dividends. “[T]o encourage investments in the jobs of the future - I think we should eliminate the tax on capital gains for investments in critical technology companies - zero capital gains on $100 million issuance of stock if it’s held for 5 years and has created real jobs. And we should attempt to end the double taxation of dividends.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At The City Club Of Cleveland, 12/3/02)



May 2003: Kerry Said He Opposed Ending Double Taxation Of Dividends. “Kerry also reiterated his opposition to the Republican plan to cut taxes on stock dividends. ‘This is not the time for a dividends tax cut that goes to individuals,’ he said.” (“Kerry Says Time Is On Dems’ Side,” The Associated Press, 5/8/03)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~14~Back To Fight
Round 14: Flip-Flopped On Raising Taxes During Economic Downturn



September 2001: Said Should Not Raise Taxes In Economic Downturn. “The first priority is the economy of our nation. And when you have a downturn in the economy, the last thing you do is raise taxes or cut spending. We shouldn’t do either. We need to maintain a course that hopefully will stimulate the economy. . . . No, we should not raise taxes, but we have to put everything on the table to take a look at why we have this structural problem today. . . .[Y]ou don’t want to raise taxes.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 9/2/01)



ü We Should “Absolutely Not Raise Taxes.” “Well, I think it’s very clear what I favor because we voted for it early in the spring, which was the Democratic budget alternative that had triggers in it where you didn’t wind up spending money you don’t have. It had a smaller tax cut but more tax cut for a stimulus, which is what we need. So you ask me, what do we need now? Yes, we need additional stimulus. We should absolutely not raise taxes. We should not cut spending. What we need to do is drive the economy of this country. The economy is the number one issue. It is the most important thing we should focus on.” (CNN’s “Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields,” 9/8/01)



April 2002: Said He Wanted Larger Tax Cut And Was “Not In Favor Of” Repeal. CNN’s TUCKER CARLSON: “Senator Kerry . . . [many Democrats] [g]et a lot of political mileage out of criticizing [President Bush’s tax cut], but nobody has the courage to say repeal it. Are you for repealing it?” KERRY: “It’s not a question of courage. . . . And it’s not an issue right now. We passed appropriately a tax cut as a stimulus, some $40 billion. Many of us thought it should have even maybe been a little bit larger this last year … [T]he next tax cut doesn’t take effect until 2004. If we can grow the economy enough between now and then, if we have sensible policies in place and make good choices, who knows what our choices will be. So it’s simply not a ripe issue right now. And I’m not in favor of turning around today and repealing it.” (CNN’s “Crossfire,” 4/16/02)



December 2002: Flip-Flopped, Would Keep Tax Cuts From Taking Effect. NBC’s TIM RUSSERT: “Senator . . . should we freeze or roll back the Bush tax cut?” KERRY: “Well, I wouldn’t take away from people who’ve already been given their tax cut … What I would not do is give any new Bush tax cuts.” … RUSSERT: “So the tax cut that’s scheduled to be implemented in the coming years …” KERRY: “No new tax cut under the Bush plan. . . . It doesn’t make economic sense.” … RUSSERT: “Now, this is a change …” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 12/1/02)



ü Called For Freeze Of Bush Tax Cuts In Favor Of Year-Long Suspension Of Payroll Taxes On First $10,000 Of Personal Income. “Kerry said Bush’s tax cuts have mainly benefited the rich while doing little for the economy. Kerry is proposing to halt Bush’s additional tax cuts and instead impose a yearlong suspension of payroll taxes on the first $10,000 of income to help the poor and middle class.” (Tyler Bridges, “Kerry Visits Miami To Start Raising Funds,” The Miami Herald, 12/7/02)

~15~Back To Fight
Round 15: Flip-Flopped On Small Business Income Taxes



Kerry Voted Against Exempting Small Businesses And Family Farms From Clinton Income Tax Increase. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #79: Motion Agreed To 54-45: R 0-43; D 54-2, 3/25/93, Kerry Voted Yea)



Three Months Later, Kerry Voted In Favor Of Proposal To Exclude Small Businesses From The Increased Income Tax. (S. 1134, CQ Vote #171: Motion Rejected 56-42: R 43-0; D 13-42, 6/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea)



Kerry Claimed He Fought To Exempt Small Businesses From Income Tax Increases. “I worked to amend the reconciliation bill so that it would … exempt small businesses who are classified as subchapter S corporations from the increased individual income tax.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 6/29/93, p. S 8268)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~16~Back To Fight
Round 16: Kerry Flip-Flopped On 50-Cent Gas Tax Increase



In 1994, Kerry Backed Half-Dollar Increase In Gas Tax. “Kerry said [the Concord Coalition’s scorecard] did not accurately reflect individual lawmakers’ efforts to cut the deficit. ‘It doesn’t reflect my $43 billion package of cuts or my support for a 50-cent increase in the gas tax,’ Kerry said.” (Jill Zuckman, “Deficit-Watch Group Gives High Marks To 7 N.E. Lawmakers,” The Boston Globe, 3/1/94)



Two Years Later, Kerry Flip-Flopped. “Kerry no longer supports the 50-cent [gas tax] hike, nor the 25-cent hike proposed by the [Concord] coalition.” (Michael Grunwald, “Kerry Gets Low Mark On Budgeting,” The Boston Globe, 4/30/96)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~17~Back To Fight
Round 17: Flip-Flopped On Leaving Abortion Up To States



Kerry Used To Say Abortion Should Be Left Up To States. “I think the question of abortion is one that should be left for the states to decide,” Kerry said during his failed 1972 Congressional bid. (“John Kerry On The Issues,” The [Lowell, MA] Sun, 10/11/72)



Now Kerry Says Abortion Is Law Of Entire Nation. “The right to choose is the law of the United States. No person has the right to infringe on that freedom. Those of us who are in government have a special responsibility to see to it that the United States continues to protect this right, as it must protect all rights secured by the constitution.” (Sen. John Kerry [D-MA], Congressional Record, 1/22/85)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~18~Back To Fight
Round 18: Flip-Flopped On Litmus Tests For Judicial Nominees



Kerry Used To Oppose Litmus Tests For Judicial Nominees. “Throughout two centuries, our federal judiciary has been a model institution, one which has insisted on the highest standards of conduct by our public servants and officials, and which has survived with undiminished respect. Today, I fear that this institution is threatened in a way that we have not seen before. … This threat is that of the appointment of a judiciary which is not independent, but narrowly ideological, through the systematic targeting of any judicial nominee who does not meet the rigid requirements of litmus tests imposed …” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 2/3/86, p. S864)



But Now Kerry Says He Would Only Support Supreme Court Nominees Who Pledge To Uphold Roe v. Wade. “The potential retirement of Supreme Court justices makes the 2004 presidential election especially important for women, Senator John F. Kerry told a group of female Democrats yesterday, and he pledged that if elected president he would nominate to the high court only supporters of abortion rights under its Roe v. Wade decision. … ‘Any president ought to appoint people to the Supreme Court who understand the Constitution and its interpretation by the Supreme Court. In my judgment, it is and has been settled law that women, Americans, have a defined right of privacy and that the government does not make the decision with respect to choice. Individuals do.’” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Vows Court Picks To Be Abortion-Rights Supporters,” The Boston Globe, 4/9/03)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~19~Back To Fight
Round 19: Flip-Flopped On Federal Health Benefits



In 1993, Kerry Expressed Doubts That Federal Employees Health Benefits System Worked Well. “Hillary Rodham Clinton today offered a fresh description of one of the most confusing elements of the Administration health care plan, the health insurance purchasing alliances, saying they would let all Americans choose coverage in the way members of Congress do. … Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, said he was not sure that the Federal program worked all that well.” (Adam Clymer, “Hillary Clinton Says Health Plan Will Be Familiar,” The New York Times, 12/8/93)



Kerry Expressed Personal Dissatisfaction With His Coverage Through Federal Program. “Earlier this month, when Hillary Rodham Clinton came to Boston and vowed that average Americans would get as good coverage as that enjoyed by their senators and representatives, Sen. John F. Kerry told Clinton that he thought the country could do better. The Massachusetts Democrat said he was thinking, among other recent disasters, of his $500 dental bill for treatment of an abscessed tooth. ‘Because it was done in the dentist’s office, rather than the hospital, they didn’t cover it. So they were urging me to go spend twice as much in a hospital,’ said Kerry, who is covered by BACE, the Beneficial Association of Capitol Employees.” (Ana Puga, “Lawmakers Talk Health Care,” The Boston Globe, 12/19/93)



Now, On Campaign Trail, Kerry Is Enthusiastic About Health Care He Receives As Senator. “As a U.S. Senator, I could get the best health care in the world. Most people aren’t so lucky, and we need to change that. That’s why my plan gives every American access to the same kind of health care that members of Congress give themselves. … Because your family’s health care is just as important as any politicians’ in Washington.” (Sen. John Kerry, “Affordable Health Care For All Americans,” Remarks At Mercy Medical, Cedar Rapids, IA, 12/14/03)



Kerry: “I’m Going To Make Available To Every American The Same Health Care Plan That Senators And Congressmen Give Themselves …” (Sen. John Kerry, AARP Democrat Candidate Debate, Bedford, NH, 11/18/03)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~20~Back To Fight
Round 20: Flip-Flopped On Tax Credits For Small Business Health



In 2001, Kerry Voted Against Amendment Providing $70 Billion For Tax Credits For Small Business To Purchase Health Insurance. (H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #83: Rejected 49-51: R 48-2; D 1-49, 4/5/01, Kerry Voted Nay)



Now, Kerry Promises Refundable Tax Credits To Small Businesses For Health Coverage. “Refundable tax credits for up to 50 percent of the cost of coverage will be offered to small businesses and their employees to make health care more affordable.” (“John Kerry’s Plan To Make Health Care Affordable To Every American,” John Kerry For President Website, www.johnkerry.com, Accessed 1/21/04)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~21~Back To Fight
Round 21: Flip-Flopped On Health Coverage



In 1994, Kerry Said Democrats Push Health Care Too Much. “[Kerry] said Kennedy and Clinton’s insistence on pushing health care reform was a major cause of the Democratic Party’s problems at the polls.” (Joe Battenfeld, “Jenny Craig Hit With Sex Harassment Complaint - By Men,” Boston Herald, 11/30/94)



But Now Kerry Calls Health Care His “Passion.” “Sen. John Kerry says expanding coverage is ‘my passion.’” (Susan Page, “Health Specifics Could Backfire On Candidates,” USA Today, 6/2/03)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~22~Back To Fight
Round 22: Flip-Flopped On Welfare Reform



In 1993, Kerry Voted To Kill Bipartisan Welfare Work Requirement. In 1993, Kerry and Kennedy voted against a welfare-to-work requirement that was supported by many Democrats, including Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Harry Reid (D-NV):



ü Fiscal 1993 Supplemental Appropriations - Welfare Work Requirement. “Moynihan, D-N.Y., motion to table (kill) the D’Amato, R-N.Y., amendment to sharply cut federal welfare administration aid to states that do not, within a year, require at least 10 percent of their able-bodied welfare recipients without dependents to work. The required workfare participation rate would be increased by 2 percent a year until 50 percent were working.” (H.R. 2118, CQ Vote #163: Rejected 34-64: R 1-42; D 33-22, 6/22/93, Kerry Voted Yea)



But In 1996, Kerry Voted For Welfare Reform. (H.R. 3734, CQ Vote #262: Adopted 78-21: R 53-0; D 25-21, 8/1/96, Kerry Voted Yea)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~23~Back To Fight
Round 23: Flip-Flops On Stock Options Expensing



Kerry Used To Oppose Expensing Stock Options. “Democratic Senator John F. Kerry was among those fighting expensing of stock options.” (Sue Kirchhoff, “Senate Blocks Options,” The Boston Globe, 7/16/02)



Kerry Said Expensing Options Would Not “Benefit The Investing Public.” KERRY: “Mr. President, the Financial Accounting Standards Board … has proposed a rule that will require companies to amortize the value of stock options and deduct them off of their earnings statements … I simply cannot see how the FASB rule, as proposed, will benefit the investing public.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 3/10/94, p. S2772)



But Now Kerry Says He Supports Carrying Of Stock Options As Corporate Expense. “On an issue related to corporate scandals, Kerry for the first time endorsed the carrying of stock options as a corporate expense. The use of stock options was abused by some companies and contributed to overly optimistic balance sheets. Kerry applauded steps by Microsoft Corp. to eliminate stock options for employees and said all publicly traded companies should be required to expense such options.” (Dan Balz, “Kerry Raps Bush Policy On Postwar Iraq,” The Washington Post, 7/11/03)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~24~Back To Fight
Round 24: Flip-Flopped On Medical Marijuana



Kerry Said His “Personal Disposition Is Open To The Issue Of Medical Marijuana.” “Aaron Houston of the Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana said that just a month ago Mr. Kerry seemed to endorse medical marijuana use, and when asked about the content of his mysterious study, said, ‘I am trying to find out. I don’t know.’ Mr. Kerry did say his ‘personal disposition is open to the issue of medical marijuana’ and that he’d stop Drug Enforcement Administration raids on patients using the stuff under California’s medical marijuana law.” (Jennifer Harper, “Inside Politics,” The Washington Times, 8/8/03)



But Now Kerry Says He Wants To Wait For Study Analyzing Issue Before Making Final Decision. “The Massachusetts Democrat said Wednesday he’d put off any final decision on medical marijuana because there’s ‘a study under way analyzing what the science is.’” (Jennifer Harper, “Inside Politics,” The Washington Times, 8/8/03)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~25~Back To Fight
Round 25: Flip-Flopped On Burma Sanctions



In 1995, Kerry Was Against Burma Sanctions. “‘I question whether isolation is a successful means of promoting political change,’ Kerry told a constituent in a 1995 letter justifying his opposition to a Burma sanction bill.” (Geeta Anand, et al., “Menino Gets Ahead Of Himself, Starts Contemplating Third Term,” The Boston Globe, 5/18/97)



But Now Kerry Supports Burma Sanctions. “In his 1996 reelection campaign, Kerry, after Governor William F. Weld took up the cause, was badgered by advisers into shifting his position. But as he eyes a presidential campaign and the Burma sanction movement gains credibility, Kerry … describes the Burma regime as a ‘semi-criminalized dictatorship … which should not be treated with respect by other nations, but should be instead subject to limitations on travel, investment, and access to the most developed nations.’” (Geeta Anand, et al., “Menino Gets Ahead Of Himself, Starts Contemplating Third Term,” The Boston Globe, 5/18/97)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~26~Back To Fight
Round 26: Flip-Flopped On Military Experience As Credential For Public Office



Kerry: Service Should Not Be “Litmus Test” For Leadership. “Mr. President, you and I know that if support or opposition to the war were to become a litmus test for leadership, America would never have leaders or recover from the divisions created by that war. You and I know that if service or nonservice in the war is to become a test of qualification for high office, you would not have a Vice President, nor would you have a Secretary of Defense and our Nation would never recover from the divisions created by that war.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/08/92, p. S17709)



But Now Kerry Constantly “Challenges The Stature Of His Democratic Opponents” Over Their Lack Of Military Service. “And more than ever, Mr. Kerry is invoking his stature as a Vietnam veteran as he challenges the stature of his Democratic opponents -- none of whom, he frequently points out, have ‘worn the uniform of our country’ -- to withstand a debate with Mr. Bush on national security.” (Adam Nagourney, “As Campaign Tightens, Kerry Sharpens Message,” The New York Times, 8/10/03)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~27~Back To Fight
Round 27: Flip-Flopped On PACs



Kerry Used To Decry “Special Interests And Their PAC Money.” “‘I’m frequently told by cynics in Washington that refusing PAC money is naive,’ Kerry told his supporters in 1985. ‘Do you agree that it is “naïve” to turn down special interests and their PAC money?’” (Glen Johnson, “In A Switch, Kerry Is Launching A PAC,” The Boston Globe, 12/15/01)



Kerry Created His Own Hard Money PAC Called Citizen Soldier Fund, Which Raised Over $700,000. “A week after repeating that he has refused to accept donations from political action committees, Senator John F. Kerry announced yesterday that he was forming a committee that would accept PAC money for him to distribute to other Democratic candidates. … Kerry’s stance on soft money, unregulated donations funneled through political parties, puts him in the position of raising the type of money that he, McCain, and others in the campaign-finance reform movement are trying to eliminate.” (Federal Election Commission Website, www.fec.gov, Accessed 2/10/04; Glen Johnson, “In A Switch, Kerry Is Launching A PAC,” The Boston Globe, 12/15/01)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~28~Back To Fight
Round 28: Flip-Flopped On $10,000 Donation Limit To His PAC



When Kerry Established His PAC In 2001, He Instituted A $10,000 Limit On Donations. “A week after repeating that he has refused to accept donations from political action committees, Senator John F. Kerry announced yesterday that he was forming a committee that would accept PAC money for him to distribute to other Democratic candidates … The statement also declared that the new PAC would voluntarily limit donations of so-called soft money to $10,000 per donor per year and disclose the source and amount of all such donations.” (Glen Johnson, “In A Switch, Kerry Is Launching A Pac,” The Boston Globe, 12/15/01)


One Year Later, Kerry Started Accepting Unlimited Contributions. “Senator John F. Kerry, who broke with personal precedent last year when he established his first political action committee, has changed his fund-raising guidelines again, dropping a $10,000 limit on contributions from individuals, a cap he had touted when establishing the PAC. The Massachusetts Democrat said yesterday he decided to accept unlimited contributions, which has already allowed him to take in ‘soft money’ donations as large as $25,000, because of the unprecedented fund-raising demands confronting him as a leader in the Senate Democratic caucus.” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Shifts Fund-Raising Credo For His Own PAC,” The Boston Globe, 10/4/02)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~29~Back To Fight
Round 29: Flip-Flopped On Using Personal Funds In 1996 Race



In 1996, Kerry And Weld Established $500,000 Limit Of Personal Wealth To Be Used In Senate Campaign. “In 1996, Kerry and Weld gave their already noteworthy Senate race added significance by establishing a spending cap. The candidates agreed to spend no more than $6.9 million from July 1 through the election. Weld ended up spending $6.6 million and Kerry $6.3 million. One key element of the agreement limited the candidates to spending $500,000 in personal wealth, a clause Weld favored because Kerry is married to a millionaire, Teresa Heinz.” (Glen Johnson, “In Kerry’s Plan For A Pac, The Resolution Of Opposites,” The Boston Globe, 12/18/01)



Kerry Broke Agreement By Spending $1.2 Million Over Limit. “[P]ost-election reports showed a last-minute infusion of $1.7 million from Kerry’s wife, heiress Teresa Heinz. … [K]erry denied that his campaign violated its agreement. The money had been loaned--not contributed--by his wife, he explained. ‘There was nothing in the agreement that restricted us from taking a loan … and we paid it back in $1,000 and $2,000 chunks.’” (“Global Ecology Lobby Rocked By Defection,” Political Finance, The Newsletter, 1/02)






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~30~Back To Fight
Round 30: Flip-Flopped On Israel Security Fence



October 2003: Kerry Calls Fence “Barrier To Peace.” “And I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government’s decision to build a barrier off the green line, cutting deeply into Palestinian areas. We do not need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israel’s security over the long- term, they increase hardships to the Palestinian people, and they make the process of negotiating an eventual settlement that much harder.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks Before Arab American Institute National Leadership Conference, Dearborn, MI, 10/17/03)



February 2004: Kerry Calls Fence “Legitimate Act Of Self-Defense.” “US Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the frontrunner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, described Israel’s construction of a security barrier as a ‘legitimate act of self defense’ after Sunday’s suicide bombing in Jerusalem, clarifying a position he took in October when he told an Arab American audience, ‘We don’t need another barrier to peace.’” (Janine Zacharia, “Kerry Defends Security Fence,” The Jerusalem Post, 2/25/04)

What I would like to know is how can you vote for a guy who doesn't hold any positions or have any core beliefs?

At least with Bush, hate him or not, you pretty much know where he stands.

Flip Flops are Fun!

A couple more flip-flops.


1) On Sunday 4/18 Kerry stated that he would release all his records regarding Vietnam.

On Monday he flip flopped and did not release all his records.

2) Abortion. More from the french poodle.



Kerry told the LOWELL SUN in October, 1972: "...It's a tragic day in the lives of everybody when abortion is looked on as an alternative to birth control or as an alternative to having a child. I think that's wrong. It should be the very last thing if it has to be anything, and I say that not just because I'm opposed to abortion but because I think that's common sense."
Kerry declared: "I think the question of abortion is one that should be left for the states to decide."

In 1975, SUN reporter John Mullins outlined how Kerry believed there were larger issues than abortion including "how to put people back to work, how to reduce crime and how to keep institutions from breaking down."

"'I think liberals spend too much time pushing issues which just aren't relevant to the mass of people,' Kerry said, including among such issues abortion, the death penalty and amnesty."


Flop

Kerry Shows Support for Abortion Rights


Email this Story

Apr 23, 3:49 AM (ET)

By MIKE GLOVER

(AP) Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., stands in front of two Texas flags...
Full Image








WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrat John Kerry was shifting his attention to women voters, underscoring his support for abortion rights days before tens of thousands of people stream into the nation's capital for a women's rights rally.

After three days spent discussing the environment, the Democratic presidential candidate scheduled a rally Friday with leaders of women's groups to compare his stand on abortion with what he says are President Bush's extreme anti-abortion positions.

A spokesman for Bush's re-election campaign declined to comment.

Kerry supports abortion rights and has said he would nominate only Supreme Court justices who support his position. Bush approves of abortion only in cases of rape or incest or when the pregnancy endangers a woman's life.

notice how nobody is responding powerboss? You're so biased that people won't even bother with your garbage. The posters above wanted to show how most politicians, even Bush, "flip flop".

You should be aware of the way you come off, because I think less and less people even bother reading what you say now.

notice how nobody is responding powerboss? You're so biased that people won't even bother with your garbage. The posters above wanted to show how most politicians, even Bush, "flip flop".

I wasn't looking for any responses. LOL. I don't post for responses, I post to inform.

What is biased about posting all the flip-flops about the french looking candidate?



You should be aware of the way you come off, because I think less and less people even bother reading what you say now.


LOL. Why are you making me the issue?

Why don't you explain to us, or at least make some excuses, of why the human waffle can't stand for ONE position?'

We know why Volconvo. You can't! You can't legitimately explain Kerrys horrendus record on Flip-flops, so you have to direct your anger and frustration towards those that dare expose the Poodle's numerous and troubling flip flops.
Of course, this is the exact same reason you cannot address the thread about his failure to live up to his promise on Sunday to release all his Vietnam records.

Also, judging by the "views" it appears as though your premise is incorrect. As usual, I might add.
LOL.

Those that responded did a Belly flop instead of a flip flop. i for one added this thread to "my Favorites"...lol

I haven't posted anything but I have been reading this thread and using it...

http://www.shopmetrospy.com/graphics/Product_94_PrSpare2.jpg

He was a senator, and just as Bush has, Kerry has "flip-flopped". Also, why did you say "french-looking". What the hell does that mean? I see people on army forums say that all the time, it's so...moronic.

Originally posted by Volconvo
He was a senator, and just as Bush has, Kerry has "flip-flopped". Also, why did you say "french-looking". What the hell does that mean? I see people on army forums say that all the time, it's so...moronic.

You SOUND rather French to me. :rolleyes:

He was a senator, and just as Bush has, Kerry has "flip-flopped".

Kerry's inability to take a stand, or rather his ability to take both sides of an issue go to the heart of why he cannot be trusted.

There is no explanation for the large number of flip-flops, especially on such core issues.

People don't want a leader that they believe says what will get him the most votes. And the polling shows this.

Kerry lies so much he can't keep track of them during interviews. Anyone who's seen any interview with him could not help put see this. Yet people still support this guy?

Powerboss,

Are you suggesting that the world hasn't changed its opinion of Yasser Arafat since 1997? While we're on the topic, what's wrong with the changing of one's opinion? Yasser Arafat used to serve the Palestinian cause. Now, he doesn't. Time has told us this. Besides, Bush has changed his opinion all over the place. Before being elected, he went all over the US promising funding to hospitals, veterans, etc. Many of these funding promises fell through. You see, everybody changes their mind.

What else do you have besides the flip-flop thing? How about Bush's need to oversimplify everything. Can the world really be as simple as Bush claims? Who are we to set the bar for the good things in this world?

What was "simplified"?

Bush has repeatedly beat the drums of war by dividing the world into Good and Evil. Not only has he made this division, but he has also placed each nation of the world into one of these partitions. THis is what I mean by "simplify".

Bush has repeatedly beat the drums of war by dividing the world into Good and Evil. Not only has he made this division, but he has also placed each nation of the world into one of these partitions. THis is what I mean by "simplify".
:rolleyes:

And you don't consider your own post an oversimplication, I suppose?

Bush has repeatedly beat the drums of war by dividing the world into Good and Evil. Not only has he made this division, but he has also placed each nation of the world into one of these partitions. THis is what I mean by "simplify".

Do you think the former Ba'athist regime of Iraq and the Communist government of North Korea are not evil? Do you think Osama bin-Laden and al-Qaeda are not evil?

DngrMse:

I didn't give specific dates and times, so I made a generalization. Did I take it out of context? Has Bush not repeatedly done this? What is your point?

Themistocles:

I know nothing of any of them. Are you implying that I should? I do not have the world's largest intelligence network at my fingertips. And if I did, why would I brand them anything other than an enemy of the state? Once they are an enemy, then they can be dealt with. This whole Evil thing is an appeal to those who think that all problems boil down to some common-sense principle.

It is the federal government's job to protect me from invaders, not spew idealogical crap in order to promote the religious agenda of individuals.

Fine. Call them "enemies of the state". No less simplistic.

I disagree! Evil is asubjective term meant to enflame the anger of others. You tell a militant that he is Evil, and he never forgets. You call them an enemy and there is room for change, negotiation, and POLITICS! There is a huge difference. I have not read them, but there must be guidelines for declaring somebody an enemy. Calling somebody Evil just shuts the door and throws away the possibility for change. That is not politics. That is not being a statesman. That's being a simplistic idealogue. That's our president.

You can call others "evil" irresponsibly, yes, but I'm not interested in having "discussions" with people who hijack our airplanes and fly them into buildings. I think the radical Palestinians have proven how far "discussion and understanding" runs for currency.

Your response is one of emotion, and I agree! If I knew a person who was about to walk into a Tel Aviv bar with the intent of blowing themselves and everything around them to dust, I too would just kill them right there and then. Is the world that simple? Do we know who our enemy is? Can we spot them? Do they wear uniforms?

Unlike you and I, the leader of the free world is not allowed to let emotion take over. He's not allowed to "shoot from the hip". Isn't it his job to use reason, not emotion? Shouldn't he make decisions that may not be immediately gratifying, but would eventually be in our best interest? Isn't that a true leader?

It is my opinion that those who flew planes into the trade center were Evil. But we do NOT need decisions based upon emotions. I say, let the survivors be emotional, and let the leadership be based upon sound reasoning and true foresight.

It is my opinion that those who flew planes into the trade center were Evil. But we do NOT need decisions based upon emotions. I say, let the survivors be emotional, and let the leadership be based upon sound reasoning and true foresight.Then let's talk of sound reasoning. Iraq had deployed chemical weapons against it's Kurdish citizenry. Had invaded Iran, (and deployed chemical weapons against them as well). Invaded Kuwait. Threatened an invasion of Saudi Arabia. Attempted to assasinate the U.S. president. Pursued the further development of Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear weapons, in contravention of UN resolutions. Supported Terrorist organizations, funded terrorist organizations. Hosted terrorist training facilities. Sought to acquire Uranium from Africa. Provided safe haven for terrorists that committed crimes against the U.S.

That's quite a track record. Our intelligence, (as well as Britain's, Germany's, France's, Israel's, Russia's), and others believed he both maintained working WMD stockpiles, and continued research into developing more. Based on 'reason' what should the President have done? What options were available to him? Sanctions? We did that...for ten years, with no effect. UN? We both did that, and approached the UN again prior to the war. Build a consensus? We did that, and attempted to make that consensus more broad-reaching than it already was.

Bush's decision to oust Saddam was based on anything but emotional response.

It would, however, be an oversimplification to characterize this was as 'all about oil', or 'American hegemony', (as some here like to say....over, and over, and over again).

Good point! However, I read the result of the intelligence subcommittee, and they did not have quite the confidence in intelligence that you have in shown your comments. All of your comments are support for the idea that Saddam Hussein is a lunatic. However, your statements are not facts in the eyes of the investigation performed by the committee. Instead, your points (African uranium for example) were assumptions based upon assumptions that, in retrospect, were poor. As for the intelligence from other countries, theirs was based on the same sources as ours. It was deemed "collective reasoning": Their words, not mine.

Based upon sound reason, I say he should have done his homework. How did a couple of nut jobs figure out how to infiltrate the most expensive intel network in the world? How did we not have operatives in this apparent hotbed of terrorism? What should he have done? I don't know. Perhaps offending the rest of the world was not the best choice though.

Here's a thought: Perhaps he could have done some research on why these lunatics had the guts to die just to get at us. Perhaps he could have respected the families of the deceased enough to ask some simple questions about history. There are historic reasons why these people disagree with us. There are reasons, and we need to adress them, NOT have a playground brawl to figure it out!

Where is our Evil Enemy? If you can locate them, then drop the bomb. But, just like the death penalty, it's not that simple. As we are seeing, people can use bad reasoning to come to very profound conclusions.

Good point! However, I read the result of the intelligence subcommittee, and they did not have quite the confidence in intelligence that you have in shown your comments. All of your comments are support for the idea that Saddam Hussein is a lunatic. However, your statements are not facts in the eyes of the investigation performed by the committee. Instead, your points (African uranium for example) were assumptions based upon assumptions that, in retrospect, were poor. As for the intelligence from other countries, theirs was based on the same sources as ours. It was deemed "collective reasoning": Their words, not mine.
Let's not fall in the trap of judging decisions in the past based on information only available today. Much of what we know now was discovered after we were into Iraq, and might never have been known had we not gone into Iraq. As it turns out, some assumptions were wrong, and some were right, (the attempts to purchase uranium from Africa, were correct, btw). But these assumptions were still based on the best intel available...and was corroborated by others.


Based upon sound reason, I say he should have done his homework. How did a couple of nut jobs figure out how to infiltrate the most expensive intel network in the world? How did we not have operatives in this apparent hotbed of terrorism? What should he have done? I don't know. Perhaps offending the rest of the world was not the best choice though.
It was not Bush's intent to offend. If the 'rest of the world' is offended because America acted in America's best interest, against a perceived threat, (that was spot on in many cases), then there is'nt much I can say. I can't help but notice that the rest of the world often act in their own best interests. I do agree though that Bush's "With us or Against us" speech was a little over the top. I think he could have handled that better....much better.


Here's a thought: Perhaps he could have done some research on why these lunatics had the guts to die just to get at us.
Rightly, or wrongly, these lunatics feel that striking against the U.S. is the what they should do. The President's first obligation is to secure this nation against those additional attacks. Chasing after Osama, and his merry band of cut-throats in Afghanistan addressed that obligation. Confronting Iraq, and it's growing threat against the U.S., addressed that obligation. Pursuing these lunatics all over the world addresses that obligation. The philosophical questions about 'why', will have to take back seat.



Perhaps he could have respected the families of the deceased enough to ask some simple questions about history. There are historic reasons why these people disagree with us. There are reasons, and we need to adress them, NOT have a playground brawl to figure it out!
There is much we already know. Osama, back in '97, (I believe), put out a rather long winded document on why the U.S. was the enemy of Islam. Reasons included the corupting nature of our culture, (and in general, the west). The fact that we were, in his eyes, infidels, and we were militarily stationed in the holy land. Our support of Israel. How do you propose we address these issues?


Where is our Evil Enemy?
Wherever we find him.



If you can locate them, then drop the bomb. But, just like the death penalty, it's not that simple. As we are seeing, people can use bad reasoning to come to very profound conclusions.
Stopping additional attacks against us, and bringing those responsible for the attacks on 9/11 is not a reasonable course of action?

How did you do that quote thing? I like it!

How did you do that quote thing? I like it!
In the lower right hand corner of any post, you'll see a QUOTE button. Hit that with your mouse, and the reply window will quote the entire post. You'll then be able to see how the quote function works, and you can further subdivide the quoted post by using the quote tag.

In the lower right hand corner of any post, you'll see a QUOTE button. Hit that with your mouse, and the reply window will quote the entire post. You'll then be able to see how the quote function works, and you can further subdivide the quoted post by using the quote tag.

Thanks DngrMse! I can't reply anymore today. Tomorrow!

You're welcome. We'll be continuing this tomorrow then, I'll be expecting you.

The newby is right..

So, if the war in Afghanistan, and Iraq were wrong, are'nt we obligated to do the right thing, by reinstalling both deposed governments, (and perhaps paying Saddam a few shekels for his two dead sons)?

Btw, the Saudi invasion thing was a lie told back then just like the WMD lie this time around.

Soviet satellite photos of Kuwait taken five weeks after the Iraqi invasion suggest the Bush administration might have exaggerated the scope of Iraq's military threat to Saudi Arabia at the time.

The photos are not conclusive proof that the administration overestimated Iraq's buildup along the Saudi border, a buildup that was cited as a justification for the deployment of U.S. troops. But two American satellite imaging experts who examined the photos could find no evidence of a massive Iraqi presence in Kuwait in September.

"The Pentagon kept saying the bad guys were there, but we don't see anything to indicate an Iraqi force in Kuwait of even 20 percent the size the administration claimed," said Peter Zimmerman, who served with the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency during the Reagan administration.

A Soviet commercial satellite took a photo of Saudi Arabia on Sept. 11 and a photo of Kuwait on Sept. 13. At the time the Defense Department was estimating there were as many as 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks in Kuwait. The photos were obtained by the St. Petersburg Times two weeks ago.

The Times informed the Defense Department of the results of the photo analysis last week and asked to see evidence that would support the official U.S. estimate of the Iraqi buildup. Spokesman Bob Hall turned down the request.

"We have given conservative estimates of Iraqi numbers based on various intelligence resources, and those are the numbers we stand by," Hall said.

The mystery surrounding the number of Iraqi troops first surfaced in November after ABC News purchased several Soviet satellite photos of Kuwait taken on Sept. 13 and could find no evidence of large numbers of Iraqi troops.


http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/50586247.html?MAC=2f91e2c771c0adcb27ba68698634e1dd&did=50586247&FMT=FT&FMTS=FT&date=&author=&printformat=&desc=Photos+don%27t+show+buildup


This has been known to be BS for a long long time..

Let's also remember that when Saddam was using poison gas, it was with the help of the Reagan administration. Some of the very people who didn't have a problem with it back then (Rumsfeld), have used it to justify the current mess.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/globalissue/usforeignpolicy/iraq1980scontent.html


It's kind of important to find out the ulterior motives of sinister politicians before giving them a blank check for war..

I really, really hate, (ha ha ha!), to break this to you, But the Soviets were not actually around to claim that their satellite photos proved anything.


And talk about full circle! Here we go with Reagan again. So tell us, how exactly did Reagan help Saddam with his poison gas.

I really, really hate, (ha ha ha!), to break this to you, But the Soviets were not actually around to claim that their satellite photos proved anything.


:p :p :p

I really, really hate, (ha ha ha!), to break this to you, But the Soviets were not actually around to claim that their satellite photos proved anything.


And talk about full circle! Here we go with Reagan again. So tell us, how exactly did Reagan help Saddam with his poison gas.


Semantics aside, it has been known for over a decade now that the Iraqi buildup on the Saudi border was BS just like the baby incubator propaganda story.

The second link I posted details quite nicely how Reagan's administration helped Saddam, ignoring the fact won't make it not true.

Soviet satellite photos of Kuwait taken five weeks after the Iraqi invasion suggest the Bush administration might have exaggerated the scope of Iraq's military threat to Saudi Arabia at the time.
I'd hate to sound like Simon Cowell when William Hung said "I had no professional training" but NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! You don't say.

Let's not fall in the trap of judging decisions in the past based on information only available today. Much of what we know now was discovered after we were into Iraq, and might never have been known had we not gone into Iraq. As it turns out, some assumptions were wrong, and some were right, (the attempts to purchase uranium from Africa, were correct, btw). But these assumptions were still based on the best intel available...and was corroborated by others.

Are you suggesting that accountability is a trap? Well it just so happens that GW agrees with you! That is why one of the first things he did upon entering office was to make sure his daddy's presidential papers would be kept under lock and key until further notice. All sarcasm aside: Why is this a trap? If you went to war, wouldn't you make damn sure that your reasoning was well documented in order to cover your ass in the future? How could the legal system operate if it only functioned in the present? Are you also suggesting that, in order to justify war, we must occupy a soverign country? Is this working for Israel?

It was not Bush's intent to offend. If the 'rest of the world' is offended because America acted in America's best interest, against a perceived threat, (that was spot on in many cases), then there is'nt much I can say. I can't help but notice that the rest of the world often act in their own best interests. I do agree though that Bush's "With us or Against us" speech was a little over the top. I think he could have handled that better....much better.

Are you implying that all of the world's countries' political movements have equal impact? Are you saying that what Zimbabwe does is of equal importance with what the USA does? That is unbridled naivete. And the very question that we are discussing is that little word "perceived". As always, the bugger is n the details. Our "perception" killed many innocent (i.e. non-terrorist, mountain-dwelling, already-starving-to-death people.

Rightly, or wrongly, these lunatics feel that striking against the U.S. is what they should do. The President's first obligation is to secure this nation against those additional attacks. Chasing after Osama, and his merry band of cut-throats in Afghanistan addressed that obligation. Confronting Iraq, and it's growing threat against the U.S., addressed that obligation. Pursuing these lunatics all over the world addresses that obligation. The philosophical questions about 'why', will have to take back seat.

Don't you see the danger in the "ends justifies the means" argument that you are making? Why did we hire Osama and Saddam in the first place? Was anybody asking "why?" while funding these nutcases in the 70s and 80s Nope! As long as those red, commie bastards were kept away from our women and children, all would be well. This is short-sighted at best.

There is much we already know. Osama, back in '97, (I believe), put out a rather long winded document on why the U.S. was the enemy of Islam. Reasons included the corupting nature of our culture, (and in general, the west). The fact that we were, in his eyes, infidels, and we were militarily stationed in the holy land. Our support of Israel. How do you propose we address these issues?

As for the holy land: It is a well-known fact that grandiose, proud, seemingly-incontrivertible statements are a part of Arab culture. Osama Bin Laden is a part of this culture. We needed to concede a bit, and he would have backed off. That is MY OPINION.

As for Israel: I don't think he really cares about the Palestinians. Anybody following the situation closely knows that Saudi Arabia has had ample opprtunities to aid the Palestinians, and has repeatedly left them out to dry. So, this means that Osama (Saudi) only wants to share the publicity brought about by the Israeli occupation, and our funding of that occupation, just like Saddam did.

When we started this, I asked a question: What's wrong with Kerry changing his opinion? Can we get back to that?

Kerry Flips AGAIN --
Nuclear Waste & Yucca Mountain



Posted August 13, 2004

John Kerry took time in Nevada this week to criticize President Bush's decision to use Yucca Mountain as the national repository for nuclear waste. Kerry said the decision was based on politics, not science. Yet in 1999, Kerry encouraged speeding up the timing of making Yucca Mountain ready to accept nuclear waste.

HUMAN EVENTS has obtained a March 23, 1999, letter [see below] to then-Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Frank Murkowski (R.-Alaska), signed by Kerry, calling for the acceleration of a nuclear waste acceptance schedule.

When the letter was sent to Murkowski, the Committee was working on legislation to advance the siting and construction of Yucca Mountain -- the site designated by Congress in 1987 as the only site the Department of Energy was allowed to study as a future permanent storage repository.


http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/yucca.html

Where does bushco stand on the issue?
http://www.sharkeater.com/bushvbush.mov

His position was first.
null argument.

His position was first.
null argument.

Well.....that says a lot. :hmm:

In your opinion, what possible motivations does Kerry have for changing his position on Yucca Mountain?

Post all your Kerry Flip Flops!!!!

Kerry claims to oppose outsourcing, while in the meantime he takes money from USINPAC, whose intent is to lobby for jobs to be sent overseas and for workers in the U.S. to be replaced with H1-B and L1 aliens. Furthermore, Kerry has met privately with (and probably took money from) Tata consulting, an Indian outsourcing firm who regularly brings U.S. jobs to India and supplies H-1B and L1 workers to U.S. companies looking to reduce costs by replacing U.S. workers with non-citizens.