Posted on 09/29/2004 8:00:45 AM PDT by finnman69
GMA
John Kerry was apparently on Good Morning America and The Note snippets this baffling exchange:
DIANE SAWYER: Was the war in Iraq worth it?
JOHN KERRY: We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today.
DS: So it was not worth it.
JK: We should not — it depends on the outcome ultimately — and that depends on the leadership. And we need better leadership to get the job done successfully, but I would not have gone to war knowing that there was no imminent threat — there were no weapons of mass destruction — there was no connection of Al Qaeda — to Saddam Hussein! The president misled the American people — plain and simple. Bottom line.
DS: So if it turns out okay, it was worth it?
JK: No.
DS: But right now it wasn't?p>
JK: It was a mistake to do what he did, but we have to succeed now that we've done what he's — I mean look — we have to succeed. But was it worth — as you asked the question — $200 billion and taking the focus off of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? That's the question. The test of the presidency was whether or not you should have gone to war to get rid of him. I think, had the inspectors continued, had we done other things — there were plenty of ways to keep the pressure on Saddam Hussein.
DS: But no way to get rid of him.
JK: Oh, sure there were. Oh, yes there were. Absolutely.
DS: So you're saying that today, even if Saddam Hussein were in power today it would be a better thing — you would prefer that . . .
JK: No, I would not prefer that. And Diane — don't twist here. Notice how Kerry loses his cool and accuses the questioner of twisting; Is this guy thin-skinned or what?
In tomorrow's debate, Kerry will benefit from lowered expectations because his image among voters is something of a caricature right now. But he still has to do better than he did on GMA. You can bet President Bush has a list of zingers that he will deploy if Kerry gives him an opening.
He denies that he said it was "pretty well confirmed." If you read the 12/9/01 transcript from the White House web site, however, he said it was "pretty well confirmed."
That conclusion is based on pretty murky statements. It is not clear to me. If it makes you feel better to believe that go right ahead.
It is not clear exactly what he was responding to but it is clear he did not back away from the prior statement since he repeats its content and adds some more to it.
What is your point? That he is a liar?
"that's been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague"
Borger: You have said in the past that it was, quote, "pretty well confirmed." Vice Pres. CHENEY: No, I never said that.
What in the world is "murky" about that?
Cheney repeatedly says that the report about Atta cannot be refuted or confirmed. How many times does he have to say it? Why are you obsessed with getting identical statements over a period of months when new information was flowing in which might alter his earlier beliefs?
I don't really care if he denies saying what he apparently had said earlier. What is important is that there were ties between Iraq and al Queda, extensive ties and that every bit of information that is added makes that more and more clear.
He may have misspoke himself with regard to his earlier comment. However, when it comes to telling the truth about the enemies we are facing Cheney is superb. THAT is what is important.
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.