What is the Deal with Flip Flopping?

As the 2004 presidential campaign has played out, starting from the beginning of Democratic primary season to the present, I have been fascinated to observe the shifting positions of Senator John Kerry, in particular on the most important issues facing America today - the war on terrorism in general and the war in Iraq in particular. With just six weeks remaining until the election, I am at a loss as to articulate the Senator's position with respect to Iraq. Apparently, so too is the Senator himself.

In 2002, Kerry said that if Saddam Hussein did not comply with the United Nations resolutions, "... 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." Also in 2002, Kerry said, "I agree completely with this administration's goal of a regime change in Iraq."

Given Kerry's post-Vietnam anti-war activities and his Senate voting record of consistently opposing weapons programs and any sort of expansion of the military throughout the Reagan years, it could very well be that his 2002 statements supporting the use of force against Saddam Hussein were merely another example of the Senator's ship sailing with the prevailing wind.

The winds changed for the Senator as the Democratic presidential race got into full swing. Howard Dean was making a mockery of the race with his full-fledged anti-war, anti-Bush position. In contrast to Dean, Kerry looked like another George Bush and that wasn't playing well with the vocal left wing of the Democratic Party.

In late 2003, it became clear that no one was going to win the Democratic nomination by being a "yes man" for President Bush. Kerry had to veer left and oppose the $87 billion for the war in Iraq. After Dean's startling Iowa meltdown, Kerry's position started to have greater appeal to the left side of the Democratic Party, at least to those that had forgotten (or never knew) what he had previously said about the war and he ultimately parlayed that into the Democratic nomination.

The problem for Kerry now is, of course, that the position that won him favor of the Democrats, at least the ones that wield the power in the Party, is not the position that can win him favor with the majority of the electorate.

When cornered a couple of months ago, Kerry admitted (rightfully, in my opinion) that even with everything we now know about Saddam's weapons, the regime change in Iraq was the right thing to do and had he been President, he would have done the same thing.

It must have been a fun time in Kerry headquarters that night. After becoming the "anti-war" candidate, Kerry went right ahead and said he would have done the same thing as the President. It is obviously hard to be the anti-war candidate when you support the war, so now the Senator has declared that the war in Iraq was, "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time."

Kerry's waffling public position on Iraq, contrasted with President Bush's unwavering commitment to winning in Iraq and in the war on terrorism, has lifted the President to a solid lead in the polls.

Some have said that Kerry's only chance to pull the rabbit out of the hat on November 2 will come during the presidential debates. I am of the position that the debates cannot and will not help Kerry.

The debates will force Kerry to solidify his position one way or the other. Either he will clarify an opposing position to the President (most likely) that will be a loser with most Americans or he will take a position more aligned with the President that will be a loser with many Democrats. Either way, he loses.

No matter how Kerry tries to move the campaign away from the war onto other issues, the fact remains that the war is the number one priority of the nation's voters. When the voters step into the voting booth on November 2, they will want to know exactly where each candidate stands on that subject. With a scant few weeks to go until that day, John Kerry had better make up his mind, because I don't believe many voters are going to ask themselves where Kerry stands on the war, and having no answer, punch the chad next to his name.

Jan A. Larson is currently employed in private industry in Texas. He is a staunch supporter of honesty in government, fiscal conservatism and equal opportunity for all. He holds a bachelor of science degree from the University of Nebraska, a master of science degree from the University of Kansas and an MBA from Colorado State University.

If we want to understand Senator Kerry's true position on Iraq, I believe we must go back to his pre-presidential candidate days when the Senator may (and I emphasize "may") have been speaking honestly and without a partisan slant. In 2002, Kerry said that if Saddam Hussein did not comply with the United Nations resolutions, "... 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." Also in 2002, Kerry said, "I agree completely with this administration's goal of a regime change in Iraq."

I believe you would have to go back BEFORE 9/11 I believe in 2002 Kerry was speaking that way because the political wind was pro-war pro-tough foreign policy... you need to see what he said about Iraq like say... during the Clinton administration which was Saddam bad, we need to get rid of him...

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.