Kerry Gives a Direct Answer

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Kerry Gives a Direct Answer
37
Tue, 08-10-2004 - 12:06am

and it's not one the anti-war left will like:


'Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found.


Taking up a challenge from President Bush, whom he will face in the Nov. 2 election, the Massachusetts senator said: "I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority.' http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/381249|top|08-09-2004::17:46|reuters.html

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-07-2004
Tue, 08-10-2004 - 12:16am
Of course you cut it off short, giving an inaccurate impression.

"I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively."

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-31-2003
Tue, 08-10-2004 - 12:25am
Well, that makes me wonder even more then why he voted against the 87 billion to supply our troops with proper equipment and such. I guess it simply fortifies my opinion that he is very liberal, especially when it comes to the military.
NIU Ribbon   Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Tue, 08-10-2004 - 12:27am

He's even starting to distance himself from Michael Moore (and himself):


'Stripes: You said during your speech that never again would U.S. troops be hostage to a lousy energy policy —


Kerry: What I said is, I didn’t say never again, I said I don’t want them to be hostage.


Stripes: You think that’s what’s going on now?


Kerry: No. That’s not related directly to the oil … and I never suggested that it is.


Stripes: The charge is out there that Republicans are much better suited to handle defense issues. How do you counter that?


Kerry: My record counters that, and my friends counter that. '


http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=23685

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Tue, 08-10-2004 - 12:31am
I don't give a racoon's bottom what Kerry claims he would do as president this week.

Renee ~~~

Avatar for tmcgoughy
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-08-2003
Tue, 08-10-2004 - 7:43am

Ok Renee,


Your cutting and pasting technique could use some work.

The first key to wisdom is constant and frequent questioning, for by doubting we are led to question and by questioning we arrive at the truth.  -
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-07-2004
Tue, 08-10-2004 - 8:16am
He wanted an alternate bill, he wanted to reduce the tax cut & use that to fund the military. When that didn't work, he voted no as a protest vote, knowing there were enough votes to pass it, & our troops were not going to lose out.

Does anyone remember being told that Iraq was a rich country & they could finance their own liberation?

I know it's harder to find out the whole story, & it's easier to react to just a small part of a story in the news, but that's not the reality of the situation.

To just cling to one sentence & disregard the rest makes no sense.




< Well, that makes me wonder even more then why he voted against the 87 billion to supply our troops with proper equipment and such. I guess it simply fortifies my opinion that he is very liberal, especially when it comes to the military.>


iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Tue, 08-10-2004 - 8:23am
How is what was posted inaccurate? The only difference is that Kerry says that he would use that authority "effectively", as opposed to how he perceives Bush as using it. The bottom line is that he confirmed that he would still vote to authorize the actions of the president on the issue even knowing what we know now.

The rest is merely dressing on the salad, attempting to show a difference between Bush and himself.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Tue, 08-10-2004 - 10:26am
This is my point with regards to Kerry, exactly.

Every time he opens his mouth, he tries to shove his foot even further into it.

He explains a flip flop with another flip flop.

He is for the war, against the war, but then would vote to do it all over again.

He is for the money, while being against it.

It is a good thing he is married because I think he would have a hard time getting dressed in the morning. I will wear the blue suit, no the brown suit, no the grey suit......

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-31-2003
Tue, 08-10-2004 - 10:45am
Debateguy, or anyone that knows. I could swear that somewhere around the time of the Dem convention, maybe a little earlier, Kerry had said somethink about sending 40,000 more troops to Iraq. I remember speculation, or criticism, that that would mean a return to the draft as there are not troops to send. Now, just in that last few days I heard him say that he intends to pull our troops out, or severely reduce the # of troops within a year if he is elected to the Presidency. Anybody know if I am confusing news stories?
NIU Ribbon   Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Tue, 08-10-2004 - 11:19am

<<Does anyone remember being told that Iraq was a rich country & they could finance their own liberation? >>


That was mainly the line from the folks who claimed we were occupying Iraq to steal their ooooiiiillll!

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

Pages