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
"Here's the thing that most Republicans don't seem to get about Kerry..."
Oh, they get it.
"Of course there was a limited number of civilian casualties, as there always is with any military action"
Renee,
Fair enough. In this case, I just am not so sure that I can agree with a protest vote when our military needs funding. While I don't have the breakdown, I do remember that much of this money, a larger portion, was going directly to our troops, no one else. Sometimes we have to choose our battles wisely, I am just not so sure then that to protest funding our troops is a wise battle line to draw. Especially after voting to send them, and now with the revalation that WMD's or not, he would have not changed his vote. The logic in it all escapes me.
As for the rest of it, you are right, it would just be another discussion on the inequities of the tax system and whether you believe or not that people should work hard for money and give more of it to the government, just b/c they make more.
Just as you said:
"He was not proposing taxing anyone again. He was proposing scaling back the tax cut for the wealthy as a way to finance the war rather than add that burden to the deficit."
My point was simply that the comment was dumb. By rolling back a tax cut, specifically on the wealthier people, people that are already still paying a larger portion of the taxex, he is going to make sure that all Americans share in the cost of funding Iraq, that simply doesn't make sense and just plays to the them vs. us mentality. Rolling back that tax cut had nothing to do with ensuring that all Americans would share in the cost of the war. I don't believe for a minute either that the only motive was to not add to the deficit. The Dems didn't want to see that tax cut have any success, and it was smaller and less immediate than the President originally planned if I remember correctly. I just cannot believe that this vote was also politically motivated in wanting to see the Presidents stated agenda fail.
Thanks for your response though, I can see that this is one of those issues that I don't think I can reconsile (sp) at this point in time.
It was a good idea, just that someone already beat her to it. It's slightly different though. One flip flop has Kerry's stand on various issues and the other flip flop says the exact opposite.
Edited 8/11/2004 9:48 am ET ET by schifferle
http://kerryoniraq.com/ -has a short documentary showing Kerry's views on Iraq.
I'll search for quotes later...gotta run.
Sounds believably like something this administration would do.
Pages