Posted on 10/08/2004 1:24:24 PM PDT by Bloggerhead
The question should be "Senator Kerry, you have repeated stated that you admired the way President Bush built a coalition to liberate Kuwait in 1991, yet you object to the way his son put together a coalition to liberate Iraq in 2003. Yet you voted against the first Gulf war and for the second. Why did you vote against the first Gulf war when even the French committed troops?"
This is from a Cheney speech:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040317-3.html
"Senator Kerry's voting record on national security raises some important questions all by itself. Let's begin with the matter of how Iraq and Saddam Hussein should have been dealt with. Senator Kerry was in the minority of senators who voted against the Persian Gulf War in 1991. At the time, he expressed the view that our international coalition consisted of " shadow battlefield allies who barely carry a burden."
1) He was looking for attention.
2) He had nothing better to do.
3) Ted Kennedy told him so.
4) He wanted to be able to say that he voted against the war before he voted for it.
5) Because he is flamming liberal dove.
6) All of the above.
Why did he consistently vote to downsize the American intelligence community and cut its funding to shreds and what gives him the right as a result to criticize U.S. intelligence that wasn't up to snuff leading to the Iraq War?
#6 ?
Do I win, do I win???? What's my prize and where do I pick it up?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4741992/
Opposing 1991 Gulf War
He joined most Senate Democrats in voting against use of U.S. military forces in 1991 after Saddam Hussein’s army invaded Kuwait. Kerry preferred relying on an economic embargo against Iraq to put pressure on Saddam to pull his troops out of Kuwait.
“We think we can get it over with an acceptable level of casualties,” Kerry said during the 1991 Senate debate. “We seem willing to act ... with more bravado than patience.”
Kerry called it a “war for pride, not for vital interests” and said that “our impatience with (economic) sanctions and diplomacy does not yet warrant that horror." He also complained that "there is a rush to war here."
found this at that rat hole Daily Kos where they love this speech:
AUTHORIZING USE OF U.S. ARMED FORCES PURSUANT TO U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION (Senate - January 12, 1991)
In the mind of sKerry and those of his ilk, the only "allies" worth having are those that we don't have.
It's kind of like the kid in school that ignores and mistreats the only real friends he does have while kissing the a$$es of the "popular" kids that treat him like dirt.
I just don't understand why his '91 "no" vote has not been hammered home more! I know he has since praised the first War as a "real coalition" but I haven't been able to find much on his actual comments or explanation as to why he wouldn't support it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22260-2004Feb7?language=printer
Before and after last year's war on Iraq, Kerry criticized the president for failing to assemble the kind of coalition Bush's father put together in 1991. But in his 1991 floor statement, Kerry was dismissive of the elder Bush's coalition. That effort, he said, lacked "a true United Nations collective security effort," and he was critical of the then-president for trading favors for China's support and cozying up to Syria, despite its human rights record.
"I regret that I do not see a new world order in the United States going to war with shadow battlefield allies who barely carry a burden," he said then. "It is too much like the many flags policy of the old order in Vietnam, where other countries were used to try to mask the unilateral reality. I see international cooperation; yes, I see acquiescence to our position; I see bizarre new bedfellows and alliances, but I question if it adds up to a new world order."
The language raises the question of what kind of international coalition meets Kerry's standards. Cutter said that, in 1991, Kerry was concerned that the United States would bear a disproportionate burden of the casualties, despite the coalition assembled, and preferred to give Hussein "a little more time" to withdraw before launching the war.
Not only did he vote against the first Gulf War, he called the coalition "a fraud."
Man, that sounds familiar.
Congratulations!!!!!!!
You are the lucky winner and are entitled to the top prize. You and 10 lucky friends will be registered to vote in 30 of your neighboring communities, then on Novemeber 2nd, you and your 10 friends will be taken to those towns in the official John Kerry Liberal Limo to cast your votes.
You will also receive an autographed copy of Teresa Lepore's book "How I tried to steal the election for Al Gore - A Democrat Election Supervisor's view".
Congrats again!!!
Bush really needs to pound this home tonight. It should definately be brought up with regard to his flip flopping and the fact that Kerry just cannot be trusted to do the right thing without complete U.N. approval. Good God! He is even regurgitating some of the same things he said in '91! And yet his supporters STILL don't care!!!
This is exactly why voters need to be informed ... Kerry's flip-flops on major issues will sell the US out to the terrorists... I think people need reminders of whats at stake...
He sent two letters to his supporters in 1991, one opposing the war, and one supporting the war. The New Republic wrote about this. If you do a search, you should be able to find it.
Well, all that sounds OK, but I was hoping we could storm some republican campaign offices and shoot out some windows.
If anyone can hunt these down please post them here and ping me.
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.