Kerry Gives a Direct Answer
Find a Conversation
Kerry Gives a Direct Answer
| 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 ~~~

Pages
<< Anybody know if I am confusing news stories? >>
You're not, but I'm sure you're confusing many Kerry supporters.
Renee ~~~
Renee ~~~
My husband and I thought about selling Flip flops when he was in town, and putting "the official shoe of Kerry" on the bottom. We would be rich! Oh, must mean we're republican! LOL. :-)
If anyone takes the idea, I have it copyrighted! :-)
Debbie
------------------------------------
~ ~ Follow your passion!:&n
<>
< That was mainly the line from the folks who claimed we were occupying Iraq to steal their ooooiiiillll! >
Renee ~~~
Renee ~~~
"Joe Biden and I offered an amendment and said, "Let's ask all Americans to share in the cost of this war." And rather than have a $690 billion tax cut over the next 10 years, why don't we just settle for a $600 billion tax cut and we can pay without adding to the deficit for this entire war? The Republicans and George Bush rejected that shared sacrifice. And I said that's wrong, and that's why I voted against it."
- Larry King Live interview
As it is now under Bush's plan, all (and future) Americans ARE sharing in the cost of this war anyway.
One thing that makes me wonder about Kerry is if he will be successful in bringing around a better consensus and plan for what can be done to help share the burden internationally. Does Kerry have a better shot at bringing these people to the table?
Your country is sharply divided on your feelings for George Bush as a president. Approx 50% of the American people strongly support GW Bush, the others have strong feelings (to put it mildly) against this administration.
Around the world it's a different story. I don't know if that matters or not. Probably about 50% of the American people think so and the other 50% do not.
I don't know....does anyone else have some insights?
If it wasn't about moving in and wrecking the place - Bush certainly sold us a bill of goods didn't he, 'cause that's just what we did. And the risk of terror is much greater now than ever before.
Before the war, we were told Iraq had WMD, that was the reason we were going to war with them.
Later when no weapons were found (and it was discovered that Bush wasn't interested in any intelligence but pro-war intelligence) he shifted gears and told us we were "gonna bring democracy to these people" We were also told that there was plenty of oil money in Iraq to help pay for their "liberation".
Now that Bush has bombed the country beyond recognition, killed countless innocent civilians, allowed for the killing and maiming of our own forces, alienated our allies, and given a growing number of Middle Easterners reason to become terrorists in the name of defending against the hated American invaders he's turned real Christian. Now we're going to promise Iraq a glowing future? A little late, doncha think? And I resent our children and grandchildren having to pay for the mistakes of a misguided, incompetent president.
"Let's ask all Americans to share in the cost of this war."
What exactly does that mean? How does rolling back a tax cut make certain that 'all Americans' are going to 'share in the cost of this war.'?
If tax payer money is supporting it, then anyone paying taxes is sharing in that cost. And we know who pays the taxes in America. If he really meant that all Americans should share in the cost, that would mean taxing people at the lowest levels that do not pay taxes. So was it those people that Kerry wanted to tax again so they could share in the cost?
I know that he would like to slowly withdraw our forces over time, which is probably the smart thing to do, provided that Iraq is stabilized as much as possible, but I didnt hear anything recently that he wanted to do anything differently...sorry.
I actually thought that someone could make a fortune selling these at the RNC with "John Kerry" on one sole, and "Flip Flop" on the other...
I think you may have a problem using Kerry's name without his permission however....
Good marketing idea though.
In a business deal, nothing much gets done if one end feels they're talking to someone who does not have the power or authority to actually make the deal. Until you're talking to someone who can authorize something, you're just jaw boning. Kerry voted to give the President the power to stop jaw boning and get something done. It's just that this really, really isn't what Kerry had in mind. It's not salad dressing. There are real differences between responsible world leadership, and what ever it is that President Bush did to lead us to war. A song comes to mind..."It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it."
Pages