Kerry and some of his Senate record...

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-05-2003
Kerry and some of his Senate record...
48
Wed, 08-11-2004 - 8:14pm
To take the spotlight off Vietnam, hows this...

The case against Kerry can be viewew with the video at http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/080304v1.wmv for those who prefer not to read.

Kerry quotes

"I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Democrat National Convention, Boston, MA, 7/29/04)

"I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq ..." - John Kerry, 7/29/02 Remarks at the 2002 DLC National Conversation, NY (Senator John Kerry, Speech To The 2002 DLC National Conversation, New York, NY, 7/29/02)

If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement ..." - Sen. John Kerry, Op-Ed The New York Times 9/6/02 (Sen. John Kerry, Op-Ed, "We Still Have A Choice On Iraq," The New York Times, 9/6/02)

"I would disagree with John McCain that it’s the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it’s what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that - that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat." (CBS’ "Face The Nation," 9/15/02)


"... Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991." - John Kerry, 7/29/02 Remarks at the 2002 DLC National Conversation, NY (Senator John Kerry, Speech To The 2002 DLC National Conversation, New York, NY, 7/29/02)

"...even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act." - Sen. John Kerry, Op-Ed The New York Times 9/6/02 (Sen. John Kerry, Op-Ed, "We Still Have A Choice On Iraq," The New York Times, 9/6/02)

"But the president, as I also wrote in that article, always reserves the right to act unilaterally protect the interests of our country." (MSNBC’s "Hardball," 9/17/02)


"t is something that we know-for instance, Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and there is some evidence of their efforts to try to secure these kinds of weapons and even test them." (CBS’ "Face The Nation," 9/23/01)

"He (Saddam) is and has acted like a terrorist, and he has engaged in activities that are unacceptable." (Fox News’ "The O’Reilly Factor," 12/11/01)

" think we ought to put the heat on Saddam Hussein. I’ve said that for a number of years, Bill. I criticized the Clinton administration for backing off of the inspections, when Ambassador Butler was giving us strong evidence that we needed to continue. I think we need to put the pressure on, no matter what the evidence is about September 11 ..." (Fox News’ "The O’Reilly Factor," 12/11/01)

"I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn’t end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It’s a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein." (CNN’s "Larry King Live," 12/14/01)

MSNBC’S CHRIS MATTHEWS: "Do you think that the problem we have with Iraq is real and it can be reduced to a diplomatic problem? Can-can we get this guy to accept inspections of those weapons of mass destruction potentially and get past a possible war with him?" (MSNBC’s "Hardball," 2/5/02)

KERRY: "Outside chance, Chris. Could it be done? The answer is yes. But he would view himself only as buying time and playing a game, in my judgment. Do we have to go through that process? The answer is yes. We’re precisely doing that. And I think that’s what Colin Powell did today." (MSNBC’s "Hardball," 2/5/02)

"And I think we’ve all reached a judgment that obviously the United States has to protect our national security interests. And we have to do what we think is right." (Fox News’ "The O’Reilly Factor," 5/22/02)


LOS ANGELES TIMES’ DOYLE McMANUS: "If that amendment does not pass, will you then vote against the $87 billion?" (CBS’ "Face The Nation," 9/14/03)

KERRY: "I don’t think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That’s irresponsible. What is responsible is for the administration to do this properly now. And I am laying out the way in which the administration could unite the American people, could bring other countries to the table, and I think could give the American people a sense that they’re on the right track. There’s a way to do this properly. But I don’t think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We’re not going to cut and run and not do the job." (CBS’ "Face The Nation," 9/14/03)

Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security & Reconstruction (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry Voted Nay)


KERRY: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it ..." (Glen Johnson, "Kerry Blasts Bush On Protecting Troops," The Boston Globe, 3/17/04)

KERRY: "I think there is a disconnect between the depth of the threat that Saddam Hussein presents to the world and what we are at the moment talking about doing. ... hen we have to be prepared to go the full distance, which is to do everything possible to disrupt his regime and to encourage the forces of democracy." (ABC’s "This Week," 2/22/98)

ABC’S COKIE ROBERTS: "And does that mean ground troops in Iraq?" (ABC’s "This Week," 2/22/98)

KERRY: "I am personally prepared, if that’s what it meant." (ABC’s "This Week," 2/22/98)

KERRY: "e can rebuild both chemical and biological. And every indication is, because of his deception and duplicity in the past, he will seek to do that. So we will not eliminate the problem for ourselves or for the rest of the world with a bombing attack." (ABC’s "This Week," 2/22/98)

KERRY: " believe he is the kind of threat that has been described. I believe that in the post-Cold War period this issue of proliferation, particularly in the hands of Saddam Hussein, is critical. It has implications for a Qaddafi, for a Sudan, for other countries in the world in the future." (ABC’s "This Week," 2/22/98)

GEORGE WILL: "Senator Kerry, you’re way ahead of the commander in chief in this regard." (ABC’s "This Week," 2/22/98)

KERRY: "I am way ahead of the commander in chief, and I’m probably way ahead of my colleagues and certainly of much of the country. But I believe this. I believe that he has used these weapons before. He has invaded another country. He views himself as a modern-day Nebuchadnezzar. He wants to continue to play the uniting critical role in that part of the world. And I think we have to stand up to that." (ABC’s "This Week," 2/22/98)

History of Kerry and Gulf War's 1 & 2

Voted against the Iraq war 1 ...

After that he was for the Iraq war 2 ...

He voted for the Iraq war 2 ...

Then he was against the Iraq war 2 ...

Before he voted against funding the Iraq war 2 he was for funding ...

Then he voted against funding.


CBS’ DAN RATHER: "(You) Voted for the war, but now didn’t vote for the money to finance the war." (CBS’ "Evening News," 7/21/04)

KERRY: "That’s not a flip-flop. That’s not a flip-flop." (CBS’ "Evening News," 7/21/04)


Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Wed, 08-11-2004 - 9:50pm
Thanks! You inadvertantly linked me to a Kerry op-ed I've been searching for a few weeks now. It's friggin' brilliant. It's written before the war, before the congressional vote even. It perfectly expresses how I felt before the war. It's perfectly moderate - promoting the value of inspections and stressing that public support, Presidential candor, and international cooperation will be neccessary - while also not shrinking from the task at hand. Pieces of it have been torn from context and posted by Kerry bashers in an attempt to show that Kerry's stance was no different than Bush's before the war (untrue!) Thank you, thank you for leading me to it, because it's the perfect, prescient , absolutely brilliant analysis of the Iraq War, made even before the war began. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph, because it outlines, very clearly, exactly what Kerry means when he says, as he did this week, "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." Here's what he means by "effectively."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1178040/posts

We Still Have a Choice on Iraq

Senator John Kerry, D-Mass. New York Times September 6, 2002

WASHINGTON -- It may well be that the United States will go to war with Iraq. But if so, it should be because we have to -- not because we want to. For the American people to accept the legitimacy of this conflict and give their consent to it, the Bush administration must first present detailed evidence of the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and then prove that all other avenues of protecting our nation's security interests have been exhausted. Exhaustion of remedies is critical to winning the consent of a civilized people in the decision to go to war. And consent, as we have learned before, is essential to carrying out the mission. President Bush's overdue statement this week that he would consult Congress is a beginning, but the administration's strategy remains adrift.

Regime change in Iraq is a worthy goal. But regime change by itself is not a justification for going to war. Absent a Qaeda connection, overthrowing Saddam Hussein -- the ultimate weapons-inspection enforcement mechanism -- should be the last step, not the first. Those who think that the inspection process is merely a waste of time should be reminded that legitimacy in the conduct of war, among our people and our allies, is not a waste, but an essential foundation of success.

If we are to put American lives at risk in a foreign war, President Bush must be able to say to this nation that we had no choice, that this was the only way we could eliminate a threat we could not afford to tolerate.

In the end there may be no choice. But so far, rather than making the case for the legitimacy of an Iraq war, the administration has complicated its own case and compromised America's credibility by casting about in an unfocused, overly public internal debate in the search for a rationale for war. By beginning its public discourse with talk of invasion and regime change, the administration has diminished its most legitimate justification of war -- that in the post-Sept. 11 world, the unrestrained threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein is unacceptable and that his refusal to allow in inspectors is in blatant violation of the United Nations 1991 cease-fire agreement that left him in power.

The administration's hasty war talk makes it much more difficult to manage our relations with other Arab governments, let alone the Arab street. It has made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the implications of war for themselves rather than keep the focus where it belongs -- on the danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his deadly arsenal. Indeed, the administration seems to have elevated Saddam Hussein in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he would never have achieved on his own.

There is, of course, no question about our capacity to win militarily, and perhaps to win easily. There is also no question that Saddam Hussein continues to pursue weapons of mass destruction, and his success can threaten both our interests in the region and our security at home. But knowing ahead of time that our military intervention will remove him from power, and that we will then inherit all or much of the burden for building a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, is all the more reason to insist on a process that invites support from the region and from our allies. We will need that support for the far tougher mission of ensuring a future democratic government after the war.

The question is not whether we should care if Saddam Hussein remains openly scornful of international standards of behavior that he agreed to live up to. The question is how we secure our rights with respect to that agreement and the legitimacy it establishes for the actions we may have to take. We are at a strange moment in history when an American administration has to be persuaded of the virtue of utilizing the procedures of international law and community -- institutions American presidents from across the ideological spectrum have insisted on as essential to global security.

For the sake of our country, the legitimacy of our cause and our ultimate success in Iraq, the administration must seek advice and approval from Congress, laying out the evidence and making the case. Then, in concert with our allies, it must seek full enforcement of the existing cease-fire agreement from the United Nations Security Council. We should at the same time offer a clear ultimatum to Iraq before the world: Accept rigorous inspections without negotiation or compromise. Some in the administration actually seem to fear that such an ultimatum might frighten Saddam Hussein into cooperating. If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act. But until we have properly laid the groundwork and proved to our fellow citizens and our allies that we really have no other choice, we are not yet at the moment of unilateral decision-making in going to war against Iraq.

John F. Kerry, a Democrat, is a senator from Massachusetts.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Wed, 08-11-2004 - 9:52pm
Everyone should read this Kerry op-ed I've posted...sorry to be pushy, but it's brilliant and explains exactly (no speculation necessary) where his head was before the war.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Fri, 08-13-2004 - 11:02pm
-- KERRY: "That’s not a flip-flop. That’s not a flip-flop." (CBS’ "Evening News," 7/21/04)

I guess Kerry should check the dictionary before making such a statement. (I note #3)

flip-flop (flpflp)

n.

1) The movement or sound of repeated flapping.

2) A backward somersault or handspring.

3) Informal. A reversal, as of a stand or position: a foreign policy flip-flop.

4) A backless, often foam rubber sandal held to the foot at the big toe by means of a thong.

5) Electronics. An electronic circuit or mechanical device capable of assuming either of two stable states, especially a computer circuit used to store a single bit of information.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-07-2004
Fri, 08-13-2004 - 11:11pm
Bush flip flops;

Against the 9/11 Commission, then it's OK after pressure applied.

Against extending the time frame, then it's OK after pressure applied.

Against testifying himself, then it's OK after pressure was applied, as long as Cheney can hold his hand & he doesn't have to swear it's the truth.

As governor; against the patient bill of rights, but after the legislature passed it because the citizens wanted it, well, it's OK because he couldn't win.

There's more, but it's Friday & I'm tired.


iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Tue, 08-17-2004 - 11:05am
We could go back and forth on this as Kerry has supplied enough material to fill a few hard drives on his flip flops.

When Kerry said that his memory of going to Cambodia was permanently seared into his mind, I guess he forgot which mind it was seared into. Now Kerry is changing his story to say that he was not in Cambodia in Christmas but in January, and served 4 separate secret missions. He even had his official biographer come up with a new version of the story.

I dont think he was over there long enough to serve in 4 secret missions.

Kerry on the Iraq War:

1) He voted to give Bush the authorization to use force.

2) He campaigns against the war.

3) Just over a week ago, he said that the President did the right thing, and that he

would even have gone into Iraq knowing that there were no WMD's.

4) He votes for the war, but against the money to supply the necessary equipment,

including flak jackets, to the troops.

And you want this man as Commander in Chief? As I have said before, I may not be a huge fan of GWB, but Kerry really scares me. Which Kerry will this country get, and on what day....He is like Jekyl and Hyde.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-07-2004
Tue, 08-17-2004 - 11:26am
And you want the guy who picked up MY PET GOAT during an attack, & then posed for pictures for 20 minutes while the staff did their regular routine that they usually follow when we are attacked. BTW, what is that routine? Posters here keep saying this was fine, Bush wasn't needed during those 27 minutes. Well I agree, we don't need Bush. I prefer a pres who takes charge in a crisis. Bush REALLY scares me.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Tue, 08-17-2004 - 12:45pm
I can guarantee that Kerry nor anyone else could have done anything during that 20 minute time period.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-15-2004
Tue, 08-17-2004 - 1:20pm
When you lie, lie, lie, it's pretty easy to pretend somebody else is a flip-flopper.

He voted to give Bush authorization for war, as a last resort. Like every American would expect. He said at the time, if Bush didn't proceed honorably with diplomacy, he'd be the first to criticize him. Which he did in January 2003, when he said "Mr. President, Do Not Rush To War". He DID NOT say Bush did the right thing, that's a bold faced lie. He said he would have authorized Bush to hold Saddam accountable to the UN resolutions which called for a complete disarmament process, not just a once over by inspectors. He voted for the money for the troops, he just wanted to pay for it by rolling back some tax cuts, typically a conservative thing to do. The Republicans voted that down because Bush threatened to veto it. And, by the way, in spite of getting that $87 billion, the troops STILL don't have their body armor and the Humvees STILL aren't armored. There's MORE money allocated for this in the 2005 defense budget. So WHO isn't supporting the troops???

Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies. Gads. And the right wonders why Democrats are so angry.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-15-2004
Tue, 08-17-2004 - 1:26pm
Really? At about 9:26, it was either FAA head Jane Garvey or FAA administrator Ben Sliney (and not Bush) who decided to halt all airplane takeoffs in the US. Nobody would have done anything??

BEFORE Bush ever went into that school the Pentagon knew an airplane had hit the WTC and 3 planes had been hijacked. Nothing was done by Bush until an hour later when he was on Air Force One, talking to Cheney, and they gave the shootdown order.

Complete total failure of command. This guy has screwed up every single thing he's done in office. Everything. I think he could go on live TV and eat puppies and you guys would still defend him.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2003
Tue, 08-17-2004 - 1:50pm
I watched Hardball yesterday and Chris was pretty pissed at republican campaign ad which cuts Kerry's answer to his question mid sentence and posting in the ad and then claiming he flip flops. He told the repub camp advisor to take it out, since the question was asked to Kerry 220 days before by him on Hardball. It is really slimy and pathetic what these people do. Bush was using that in his campaign speeches against Kerry by saying what his opponent said 221 days ago. Lets hope people can see thru this tactics.

Pages