Kerry Flip-Flop or Verbal Gaffe, 2nd Debate

[Captain Ochre]

I hadn't noticed this one at first listen.

In the fifteeth (pseudo-freudian slip apparently caused by Kerry's recent endorsement of Crest Whitestrips I meant "fifteenth") minute, Senator Kerry states that the reason Congress gave approval to war powers in facing down Hussein was because of the weapons of mass destruction.

Apparently that wasn't Kerry's reasoning, however.
Kerry (responding to the President's challenge some weeks ago) stated that he would have voted for those war powers even knowing that no WMD's would be found.

Debate:

Ladies and gentlemen, the right war was Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan. That was the right place. And the right time was Tora Bora, when we had him cornered in the mountains. Now, everyone in the world knows that there were no weapons of mass destruction. That was the reason Congress gave him the authority to use force, not after excuse to get rid of the regime.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...te.transcript/

Scroll down nearly halfway.

Responding to President Bush's challenge to clarify his position, Sen. John F. Kerry said Monday that he still would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq even if he had known then that U.S. and allied forces would not find weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Aug9.html

That's Kerry for you.
" ... entirely consistent ..."

[Arnold]

Check out Drudge for Kerry's most recent dumb quote.

KERRY ENVISIONS TERRORISTS AS 'NUISANCE'

Isn't that how he has always "envisioned" them?

[Captain Ochre]

Check out Drudge for Kerry's most recent dumb quote.

KERRY ENVISIONS TERRORISTS AS 'NUISANCE'

Isn't that how he has always "envisioned" them?

We may surmise that Kerry's choice of words hints at an intention to treat terrorism as a law-enforcement problem rather than a global war, but the use of the word itself wouldn't be signficant if Kerry weren't on record espousing such views in greater detail.

From the Democratic Primary debates in Iowa:

Q: Under what future conditions would you support a pre-emptive military strike against another nation without wide international approval?

KERRY: Only when the US is so threatened that it is required for the survival of our country or for the accomplishment of some extraordinary humanitarian goal. Look, this administration misled the American people, abused the power that they were given, and has run an ineffective war on terror. Saddam Hussein was way down the list, with respect to the targets, even on the Pentagon's own list of targets. And what they did was supplant Iraq for the real war on terror, which is Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and terror across the world. The war on terror is less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering and law-enforcement operation. And we deserve presidential leadership that knows that and knows how to make America safer, and I will do that.

http://www.issues2000.org/Archive/De...John_Kerry.htm

I just found what looks like another debate whopper by the Senator from Massachusetts:

Now with respect to the deficit, the president was handed a $5.6 trillion surplus, ladies and gentlemen. That's where he was when he came into office.

We now have a $2.6 trillion deficit. This is the biggest turnaround in the history of the country. He's the first president in 72 years to lose jobs.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...pt2/index.html

(CBS/AP) President Bush sent Congress a $2.4 trillion election-year budget on Monday featuring big increases for defense and homeland security but also a record $521 billion deficit.

It just seems suspicious to me that the entire federal budget (according to CBS/AP) would be less than the federal deficit according to Kerry.



Perhaps I'm missing something somewhere, but it seems to me that one of the network fact-checkers would have pointed out this error of Kerry's. The CNN fact-check didn't mention it, afaics.

The federal debt is in the neighborhood of seven trillion (iirc), so I've got to wonder where Kerry's getting his numbers (other than off the top of his head).

But at least he delivered it smoothly (MOL)!!!

[Arnold]

But at least he delivered it smoothly (MOL)!!!

===


I've got to hand it to you Captain Ochre, you are thorough.

[The Laughing Man]

That whole "we had bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora" line is untrue, iirc. We thought we had him cornered there, but experts are now saying that he probably wasn't.

[The Laughing Man]

Oh, look. Another glaring Kerry flip-flop in the last debate:

"Well, let me tell you straight up: I've never changed my mind about Iraq. I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat. I always believed he was a threat. Believed it in 1998 when Clinton was president. I wanted to give Clinton the power to use force if necessary."

Saddam was a threat. Kerry always believed he was. However, Kerry later says this about Iran:

I don't think you can just rely on U.N. sanctions, Randee. But you're absolutely correct, it is a threat, it's a huge threat.

And what's interesting is, it's a threat that has grown while the president has been preoccupied with Iraq, where there wasn't a threat.

So was Iraq a threat or wasn't it?

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

I hadn't noticed this one at first listen.

In the fifteeth (pseudo-freudian slip apparently caused by Kerry's recent endorsement of Crest Whitestrips I meant "fifteenth") minute, Senator Kerry states that the reason Congress gave approval to war powers in facing down Hussein was because of the weapons of mass destruction.

Apparently that wasn't Kerry's reasoning, however.
Kerry (responding to the President's challenge some weeks ago) stated that he would have voted for those war powers even knowing that no WMD's would be found.

Debate:

Ladies and gentlemen, the right war was Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan. That was the right place. And the right time was Tora Bora, when we had him cornered in the mountains. Now, everyone in the world knows that there were no weapons of mass destruction. That was the reason Congress gave him the authority to use force, not after excuse to get rid of the regime.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...te.transcript/

Scroll down nearly halfway.

Responding to President Bush's challenge to clarify his position, Sen. John F. Kerry said Monday that he still would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq even if he had known then that U.S. and allied forces would not find weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Aug9.html

That's Kerry for you.
" ... entirely consistent ..."

I don't really see any inconsistency there. In one case, he is speaking only for himself and his opinion at the time the vote was made, and in the other he is merely reciting why Congress (not Kerry individually, but Congress overall) granted the war powers.

[Calvinist4Him]

Thank you Captain, that was rich and elightening in an "in your Bush-hating face" sort of way.

How can anybody vote for Kerry, if they actually believe the decision to go to war in Iraq is a mistake?

Rocks and hard places.

[Zarathustra]

Hey there people.

Do I seriously have to post some of the garbage dear bush has said over his time as president? It would make what Kerry has said look like an un-super size Mc D's meal. eg. Bush mentions that the war on terrorism cannot be won. Wait! That’s not the official white house statement; better retract that one before someone notices.

Come on, war in Iraq. Where were those weapons of mass destruction? certainly not under the cushions of the oval office, and evidently not in Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld changing his position from month to month. ( Not that we notice. Receiving only pop news, designed so we can’t remember events for more then a week at a time ). Before the war, he gave statements along the lines; we have strong evidence that Iraq posses weapons of mass destruction. Now it seems; there never was tangible evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction.
If the president was so hell bent on helping a people, why not stop the 'genocide' taking place in Sudan. The genocide is marked because no one has yet called it that. 10,000 people a month starving to death, being raped and murdered. With over 3 million people displaced from their homes due to the fighting this is a massive humanitarian disaster.
So let us recap. Donald Rumsfeld knew that there was no strong evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was still invaded. If the president invaded to ‘save the people of Iraq’ why did he not choose a country where ten’s of thousands more are dieing. Wouldn’t countries like Sudan be higher on the list, to free from oppression?!? I don’t think I need to spell out why America went into Iraq. I’ll let your own rational minds work that out.


Sorry it was a bit out of the context of the thread.
Look forwards to the barrage or replys. ^^

[Losvedir]

Hey there people.

Do I seriously have to post some of the garbage dear bush has said over his time as president? It would make what Kerry has said look like an un-super size Mc D's meal. eg. Bush mentions that the war on terrorism cannot be won. Wait! That’s not the official white house statement; better retract that one before someone notices.

Come on, war in Iraq. Where were those weapons of mass destruction? certainly not under the cushions of the oval office, and evidently not in Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld changing his position from month to month. ( Not that we notice. Receiving only pop news, designed so we can’t remember events for more then a week at a time ). Before the war, he gave statements along the lines; we have strong evidence that Iraq posses weapons of mass destruction. Now it seems; there never was tangible evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction.
If the president was so hell bent on helping a people, why not stop the 'genocide' taking place in Sudan. The genocide is marked because no one has yet called it that. 10,000 people a month starving to death, being raped and murdered. With over 3 million people displaced from their homes due to the fighting this is a massive humanitarian disaster.
So let us recap. Donald Rumsfeld knew that there was no strong evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was still invaded. If the president invaded to ‘save the people of Iraq’ why did he not choose a country where ten’s of thousands more are dieing. Wouldn’t countries like Sudan be higher on the list, to free from oppression?!? I don’t think I need to spell out why America went into Iraq. I’ll let your own rational minds work that out.


Sorry it was a bit out of the context of the thread.
Look forwards to the barrage or replys. ^^

Hey Zarathustra, welcome! The answer is because they had their hearts set on Iraq before 9/11.

[Captain Ochre]

I don't really see any inconsistency there. In one case, he is speaking only for himself and his opinion at the time the vote was made, and in the other he is merely reciting why Congress (not Kerry individually, but Congress overall) granted the war powers.

Congress overall could have given the powers based on the Republican majority, Eireann. That Republican majority was likely to favor granting of war powers for Iraq regardless of literal possession of WMD stockpiles.
Kerry is either very probably lying (speaking out of turn on behalf of Congress, or crediting a minority view within Congress for a decision that took a majority in Congress), or he's being inconsistent.

Maybe you're right, though. There is a chance that Kerry is more hawkish than the Congressional Republicans on the whole.

It's a bit difficult to reconcile with his record, however.

[Captain Ochre]

Hey there people.

Do I seriously have to post some of the garbage dear bush has said over his time as president?

That would be off-topic here, but you're welcome to rehash some of our older threads if you feel compelled to do so (by either adding to those other threads or starting a new one of your own, that is).

It would make what Kerry has said look like an un-super size Mc D's meal. eg. Bush mentions that the war on terrorism cannot be won. Wait! That’s not the official white house statement; better retract that one before someone notices.

Simply reviewing the context of the initial remark explains that one adequately.

Come on, war in Iraq. Where were those weapons of mass destruction? certainly not under the cushions of the oval office, and evidently not in Iraq.

Kerry's got the same problem on that one, unless he can excuse himself having missed the relevant meeting of the Senate Committee on Intelligence.

Donald Rumsfeld changing his position from month to month. ( Not that we notice. Receiving only pop news, designed so we can’t remember events for more then a week at a time ).

Off of Bush and onto Rumsfeld now? Does that mean that I can add the silly remarks of Wesley Clark to those of Kerry?

Before the war, he gave statements along the lines; we have strong evidence that Iraq posses weapons of mass destruction. Now it seems; there never was tangible evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction.
If the president was so hell bent on helping a people, why not stop the 'genocide' taking place in Sudan. The genocide is marked because no one has yet called it that. 10,000 people a month starving to death, being raped and murdered. With over 3 million people displaced from their homes due to the fighting this is a massive humanitarian disaster.
So let us recap. Donald Rumsfeld knew that there was no strong evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was still invaded. If the president invaded to ‘save the people of Iraq’ why did he not choose a country where ten’s of thousands more are dieing. Wouldn’t countries like Sudan be higher on the list, to free from oppression?!? I don’t think I need to spell out why America went into Iraq. I’ll let your own rational minds work that out.

Sorry, but my rational mind went straight to your equivocation between "tangible" evidence and "strong" evidence.

Sorry it was a bit out of the context of the thread.
Look forwards to the barrage or replys. ^^

You can call my reply a barrage if you like, but I figure this digression is about done.

[Jaltus]

Saddam was always I threat, and that was why I voted against the Gulf War under the first Bush and why I voted for war under GW Bush.

I'm always consistent.

[Sheepdog]

i thought i noticed a couple points he was being inconsistent with during the debate. i was actually giving him the benefit of the doubt too, because he did a decent job (IMO) responding to some of the flip-flop charges often levied against him (some of which i'll have to admit are unfair).

[Captain Ochre]

i thought i noticed a couple points he was being inconsistent with during the debate. i was actually giving him the benefit of the doubt too, because he did a decent job (IMO) responding to some of the flip-flop charges often levied against him (some of which i'll have to admit are unfair).

Most of the "flip-flop" charges are good examples of equivocal language and wishy-washyness when Kerry is called on to express himself.
Those instances are sometimes unfairly played up as direct contradictions and (pet peeve) Hannity keeps repeating the bit about Kerry's absences from Intelligence Committee meetings without noting that the known absentee rate pertains only to the committee's public meetings.

IMO, no such embellishment should be needed.
I guess some do it while justifying it by supposing that the other side is getting away with the same kind of thing.

Fallacious reasoning, that.