Kerry Flip-Flop Alert!

Monica Crowley just reported on WABC radio (770 AM, New York City) that John Kerry appeared on Crossfire in 1997 and essentially said that the US needed to force Iraq to comply with UN reslutions and that the US needed no permission from the UN to use such force. Quite a change from what we've been hearing! Was he "duped" by the Bush intel in 1997 when the statements were made? Or was Kerry just mouthing the party line when a Democrat threatened force, and has switched sides now that a President actually had the VISION and GUTS to do what was necessary? The answer is obvious. And the case for action was STRONGER after 9/11, not weaker.

Crowley had a tape and played Kerry's actual comments, but it was of poor quality. But it demonstrates that not only is Kerry wrong on this issue, but he's a crass opportunist with no principles who will apparently say anything at any time. At least a kook like Kucinich is consistent!

This it?

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0403/S00076.htm

Matthew Reid: Old Kerry Quotes Unearthed
Friday, 5 March 2004, 1:55 pm
Opinion: Matthew Reid

Old Kerry Quotes Unearthed

By Matthew Reid
"Where's the backbone of France?"

No, that's not the name of the new Toby Keith CD. It's not some ill-timed remark from President Bush or even the title of a new book from Ann Coulter. That is but one of the provocative questions asked by Sen. John Kerry on CNN's Crossfire back in November of 1997.

That comment, and others cited below, came during Kerry's vigorous defense against charges that the Clinton administration was sparring with member nations of the UN Security Council, including France and Russia. We now know that France was illegally trading with Saddam during those years, which explains their behaviour, but what about Mr. Kerry?

It does appear that his position on war vacillates depending on the political benefit to him - and the party affiliation of the president initiating the action. Gulf War 1, Republican president George Bush 1, Kerry votes no - even though Saddam had invaded another country! (And now he talks like he supported it all along.)

1997-1998, Clinton wants to use military force, no problem, he's a Democrat. And while Kerry did vote to authorize the recent War in Iraq, he now claims he wasn't really voting to use force, just to threaten it.

On the campaign trail, Kerry blames the President for equipment shortages our troops are dealing with, relating stories of family members buying body armor on the Internet. Yet it was John Kerry, who inexplicably voted against the 87 Billion Dollar appropriations bill which included funding for that very same equipment.

Then again, Mr. Kerry has never let what he said yesterday interfere with what he needs to say today.

Take Kerry's response to the well-orchestrated Democrat charge that Bush was AWOL. He tried to appear above the fray, saying something like, well, it was a difficult issue, I understand that, "some people wanted to serve, others didn't."

That choice of words is curious because, while Kerry did serve, it was not his first choice. A February, 1970 Harvard Crimson article says, "When he approached his draft board for permission to study for a year in Paris, the draft board refused and Kerry decided to enlist in the Navy."

Some people chose to go to Vietnam, others would have rather gone to France.

And while Kerry and the Democrat Smear Machine forced the President to release all of his Vietnam era records, John Kerry refuses to release his medical records.

Kerry was in Vietnam for 4 months during which he was awarded 3 Purple Hearts for wounds suffered in battle. Mr. Kerry is the only obstacle to the release of those records, but for some reason he doesn't want the public to see them.

Of course, he probably doesn't want anybody to see this either, but here's more from that Crossfire transcript, Kerry, defending the Clinton administration from charges of failed leadership said, "On the contrary. The administration is leading - I think the United States has always reserved the right and will reserve the right to act in its best interests."

Wait a second. John Kerry equating presidential leadership with going it alone? This doesn't sound like John F. Kerry circa 2004 does it? Then again, Kerry's never been one to let his position on an issue stop him from taking a completely different position on the very same issue.

Kerry continued, "And clearly it is not just our best interests, it is in the best interests of the world to make it clear to Saddam Hussein that he's not going to get away with a breach of the '91 agreement that he's got to live up to, which is: allowing us to know that he has dismantled his weapons."

More from Senator Kerry, the unilateralist hawk, "Clearly the allies may not like it, and I think that's our great concern - where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity: they're now climbing into a box and they will have enormous difficulty not following up on this if there is not compliance."

I hope there's room for Mr. Kerry in that box. After all, he has made 'restoring our standing in the world' a prominent campaign pledge. He regularly lambastes the president for his 'isolating us from the rest of the world'. Funny, Kerry loved when Clinton did it.

But that's been Senator Kerry's m-o whenever his previous convictions became inconvenient - switch tack and don't look back. Maybe the more appropriate question would be, "Where's the backbone of Kerry?"

SOURCES:

1. CNN Crossfire / November 12, 1997; Wednesday, 7:30 pm Eastern Time (Lexis-Nexis Transcript #97111200V20)

2. The Harvard Crimson quote is available online here: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=352185

The transcript has been posted to FR for weeks now. Maybe it was a FReeper who passed it along (I've posted it to several threads here myself today).

Flashback! Excerpt from Kerry on CrossFire in 1997 (Kerry RIPS into France, et al)
SHOW: CNN CROSSFIRE 19:30 pm ET
November 12, 1997; Wednesday 7:30 pm Eastern Time
Transcript # 97111200V20
JOHN SUNUNU, CROSSFIRE: Senator Kerry, in fact, in spite of the administration claiming it has restored unanimity, that has not occurred. All the strength of this resolution had to be pulled out of it get any votes at all other than our own. Isn't this exercise actually counterproductive in sending a signal to Iraq that the coalition still remains frayed?
SEN. JOHN KERRY, (D), MASSACHUSETTS, FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE: Well, John, you're correct that this resolution is less than we would have liked. I don't think anybody can deny that we would have liked it to have threatened force and we would have liked it to carry the term serious consequences will flow. On the other hand, the coalition is together. I mean the fact is there is a unanimous statement by the security council and the United Nations that there has to be immediate, unrestricted, unconditional access to the sites. That's very strong language. And it also references the underlying resolution on which the use of force is based. So clearly the allies may not like it, and I think that's our great concern -- where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity, but in a sense, they're now climbing into a box and they will have enormous difficulty not following up on this if there is not compliance by Iraq.
...
KERRY: Well, John, there's absolutely no statement that they have made or that they will make that will prevent the United States of America and this president or any president from acting in what they believe are the best interests of our country. And obviously it's disappointing. It was disappointing a month ago not to have the French and the Russians understanding that they shouldn't give any signals of weakening on the sanctions and I think those signals would have helped bring about this crisis because they permitted Saddam Hussein to interpret that maybe the moment was right for him to make this challenge.
...
SUNUNU: But isn't what he has seen is a loss of U.S. leadership and an erosion under an administration that has failed to lead?
KERRY: On the contrary. The administration is leading. The administration is making it clear that they don't believe that they even need the U.N. Security Council to sign off on a material breach because the finding of material breach was made by Mr. Butler. So furthermore, I think the United States has always reserved the right and will reserve the right to act in its best interests. And clearly it is not just our best interests, it is in the best interests of the world to make it clear to Saddam Hussein that he's not going to get away with a breach of the '91 agreement that he's got to live up to, which is allowing inspections and dismantling his weapons and allowing us to know that he has dismantled his weapons. That's the price he pays for invading Kuwait and starting a war.
...
KERRY: Correct, absolutely correct, and I believe, and they stood with us today and I am saying to you that it is my judgment that by standing with us today and calling for the unrestricted, unconditional, unlimited, you know, access, they have now taken a stand that they are duty bound to enforce and if Saddam Hussein doesn't do that, the president, I think, has begun a process which you remember very well, John, was not done in one week, in one day, in one month. It took months to weave together the fabric to lead up to an understanding of what was at stake. I am convinced that many people have not yet even focused in full measure on what is at stake.
...
PRESS: Are you suggesting, are you calling for a military, U.S. military strike against Iran now before...
SUNUNU: Iraq.
PRESS: Iraq, I'm sorry, before any other United Nations action is taken?
KING: No, I'm saying is that very soon, though, we would have to use the threat of military force because as Bill Richardson said that this, these are delaying tactics brought about by the Iraqis and this is very serious. When you're talking about biological warfare and when you're talking about the fact that they've already adjusted the cameras, they've already fooled around with the equipment which gauges the air, they've already moved some of the devices away from the U.N. inspectors. This is a very, very serious situation and I'm saying that we would have to, I think, threaten very severe military action at an early date. Now exactly what that would be is obviously, we have to get more information on it, but based on I think what all of us know, it is very, very critical and not too much time more can be wasted.

Kerry did a better job of succicently arguing the case for war in Iraq without UN approval than I've heard from Republican leadership.

Kerry has been distancing himself from such strong speech though. He wants to sit at the negotiating table with terrorists. Appeasement in our lifetime.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.