Get the Rally Sign and Bumper Sticker Here
www.counterpunch.us
Posted on 08/09/2004 3:10:30 PM PDT by Shermy
GRAND CANYON, Ariz. - Responding to President Bush's question with several of his own, Sen. John Kerry said Monday he would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq knowing what he does now, but added that he would have used the power more effectively than the current commander in chief.
The Democratic presidential nominee said he hoped to begin reducing the number of U.S. forces in Iraq within six months of taking office if he is elected. "It is an appropriate goal to have," he said, but added that achieving it would depend on broader international assistance, better stability within Iraq and other related factors.
Fielding questions from reporters after he and wife Teresa Heinz Kerry hiked along the rim of the Grand Canyon, Kerry also said he opposes raising the retirement age for Social Security as part of any plan to overhaul the system.
"People who start talking about raising the retirement age are people who may not have worked at real jobs for a lifetime," he said.
Kerry, a Massachusetts senator, voted in October 2002 to give Bush authority for using military force to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
At the same time, public opinion polls show that Bush's handling of the postwar period is unpopular, and the Democratic presidential nominee routinely accuses Bush of having sent troops into war without a plan to win the peace.
Last Friday, Bush challenged Kerry to answer yes-or-know to the question of whether he would have supported the invasion of Iraq "knowing what we know now" about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction.
"I have given my answer. We did the right thing and the world is better off for it," the president said.
In response, Kerry said, "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."
Then he had a few barbed questions for Bush.
"Why did we rush to war without a plan to win the peace? Why did you rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth?
"Why did he mislead America about how he would go to war. Why has he not brought other countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way they deserve it and relieve the pressure on the American people?"
Kerry faulted Bush for the use he made of the authority he had to wage war.
"American presidents should not send American forces into war without a plan to win the peace. This president did not have a plan to win the peace and the evidence is still that they are scrambling and struggling to try to find a way to do it," the Democrat said.
Specifically, Kerry noted that the administration is scrambling to persuade Arab countries to dispatch Muslim forces to Iraq. "All of this should have happened in the beginning," he said.
The presidential nominee said he intends "to get more people involved in that effort and I'm convinced I can be more successful than President Bush in succeeding in doing that."
Kerry said in an interview last week his goal was to begin reducing the number of troops in Iraq within the next year. Asked about his plans, he said he would use diplomacy to help build stronger international alliances.
The feasibility of that goal, he said, would hinge on "the stability of Iraq, the ability to have the elections, and the training and transformation of the Iraqi security force itself."
Kerry made his comments as he continued to campaign by train through several western battleground states — Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and Nevada, where he was scheduled to end his day.
He used the spectacular scenery of the Grand Canyon as the backdrop for an attack on the Bush administration's handling of the nation's parks. He said administration policies have resulted in a backlog of $600 million in underfunding.
What an utter dumbshi-ite.
LOL!
Kerry hasn't worked at real jobs for a lifetime AND he advocated age extention and means testing in the 1990's!!
He stood by his record before he ran away from his record...
http://slate.msn.com/id/2096540
""During the 1996 campaign, when I was a Globe reporter, Kerry told me the Social Security system should be overhauled. He said Congress should consider raising the retirement age and means-testing benefits and called it "wacky" that payroll taxes did not apply to income over $62,700. "I know it's all going to be unpopular," he said. "But this program has serious problems, and we have a generational responsibility to fix them.""
_______________
And yes, there's that whole Iraq confusion he has too.
I'm sure that in the last decade, he voted just the opposite.
Kerry was in the Senate? Who knew?
He still didn't answer the question. All he's doing is saying that his vote to give Bush the authority to invade was the correct one. He still ducked the question of whether Bush was correct to exercize that authority by going ahead with the invasion.
I expect folks will figure that out and call him on it at some point.
Great find!
More documented flip flops.
What rush, Kerry himself has been calling to oust Saddam since 1998. That's over 5 years.
Why did you rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth?
Is this really the same guy who missed 39 of 48 Senate Intelligence Committee meetings when he was on the oversight team. Kerry is more responsible and is really the one guilty of not caring enough or working hard enough to improve intelligence. Kerry in fact wanted huge intelligence cuts.
"Why did he mislead America about how he would go to war. Why has he not brought other countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way they deserve it and relieve the pressure on the American people?"
Kerry said the same things and came to the same conclusions with the same information. Nobody was mislead, a decision with the information available. Kerry acts like some outsider, when he was as inside as possible.
RE: COMMENCEMENT OF MILITARY STRIKES IN IRAQ
Thursday, March 20, 2003
WASHINGTON, DC – Senator John Kerry issued the following statement in response to the commencement of military strikes in Iraq:
“It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism. If so, the only exit strategy is victory, this is our common mission and the world’s cause. We're in this together. We want to complete the mission while safeguarding our troops, avoiding innocent civilian casualties, disarming Saddam Hussein and engaging the community of nations to rebuild Iraq.”
How about doing a "Cut'N Run" Kerry bumber sticker as well?
Funny. He still can't say "France" and explain why France would spend a dime for a country it claims owes it billions and billions of dollars.
That's right! Didn't Bush cut the funds needed to fill the grand canyon back in with concrete. :)
Somebody needs to school the reporters. Kerry always gives openings for rebuttal for example when asked about why he voted to go to war in Iraq during the primaries, and noting that Howard Dean had an upper hand with the DEMS because of his stand against the war this is what Kerry said:
Kerry completed his answer by leaning in close to Alterman, eyes blazing, and said, "Eric, if you truly believe that if I had been President, we would be at war in Iraq right now, then you shouldn't vote for me."
Here is the link: On Kerrys website
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2003_1210b.html
kerry stand.Is this a flip or a flop I lost count on his flips-flops.
Then he can say a few words about how "infantile" Kerry's faith in planning is. That if we wrote things down ahead of time our enemy would just melt away, the electricity would come back on, the various tribes would put aside their differences, etc. It takes a level of naivete to put that much faith in planning. "No plan survives first contact with reality" or, as General Franks put it, "the enemy gets at least a vote".
If you still believe planning solves everything, Senator, why are we still losing troops to IEDs? We've known about them for over a year. No amount of "planning" can negate them and they are a significant part of our losses. If planning saves so many lives, why was the Normandy invasion fraught with so many foul ups? DD tanks sank, naval bombardment failed to clear pill boxes, preparatory bomb drops fell miles inland, troops landed on the wrong beach, gliders plowed into "Rommel's asparagus", paratroopers were scattered all over the peninsula, etc. The planning for that lasted three years.
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.