Pro X,
I’m sure there is a humorous Kerry Waffle page that spells it out, but I’dd add:
-
vote on war resolution
-
Patriot Act vote
-
Spending in Iraq
Vroom, Please read my first post on this thread addressed to you and reply. I have been patiently awaiting a reply from you on this but fear you are just going to ignore me.
Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins
Vegita:
vroom is is busy looking out for his little buddy. He has his work cut out for him too!
Professor:
It is not diffiuclt to point out Kerry’s many “waffles” and “flip-flops.”
Please read the following article by another Professor. I think you may find it interesting as well as informative:
October 01, 2004, 7:15 a.m.
Kerry, Captive
An anatomy of flip-flopping.
There is a logic to Senator Kerry’s flip-flopping that transcends his political opportunism: He is simply a captive of the pulse of the battlefield, without any steady vision or historical sense that might put the carnage of the day into some larger tactical, strategic, or political framework. As was true over a decade ago during Gulf War I, he contradicts himself when good news from the front makes his prior antiwar stance look either timid or foolhardy. But when the casualty rate rises or CNN is particularly vivid in airing the latest beheading or car bomb he returns to his shrill pessimism and denounces the war.
In 1991, when in-the-know pundits warned of horrific losses, Kerry spoke against going into Kuwait. When 100 hours brought unforeseen victory, he retroactively supported Desert Storm. Finally, he returned to his previous opposition when Kurds and Shiites were left hanging in the victory’s aftermath. The larger issue was never whether Saddam should rest atop a stolen, oil-rich country, but rather what exactly 51 percent of the voters seemed to favor on any given day.
Now we see a repeat performance, driven by the same opportunism: Kerry publicized his previous sanctioning of the war as Saddam’s statue fell and Iraqis rejoiced. Then, as the looting spread, he reiterated his longstanding worries. He solved the dilemma of sorting out the chaos by talking about voting for and then against appropriations ? after all, it remains unclear whether the evening news will bring forth the last gasp or the new wave of Iraqi terror, and Americans meanwhile seem equally divided on the wisdom of the entire campaign.
In this regard, the senator is one with the majority of citizens ? at least if the mercurial polls are any indication. Remember the ups and downs: Public support for taking out Saddam was strong on the eve of the war; after the three-week victory, it rose to overwhelming approval, but news of the lootings and terrorism caused it to plunge. It recovered a little with the capture of Saddam and the hand-over of power to the Iraqi interim government, but now it is eroding as the Sunni Triangle sends forth its daily death counts.
Lost in all this political calculus is a consistent belief that it was and is a very difficult but good thing to rid the world of a mass murderer like Saddam and leave consensual government in his wake, thus turning a volcano of death into an island of sanity in the strategic Middle East.
GOOD AND BAD WAR LEADERS
Almost no one compares the present disturbing costs to previous American sacrifices at the Argonne, Guadalcanal, or the Bulge, much less preventable American miscalculations at Pearl Harbor, the Kasserine Pass, Schwienfurt, and the Yalu River, all of which sent thousands of Americans to their deaths but nevertheless did not lead to strategic defeat. In our present folly, if we are not perfect, then we are failures ? war being not the age-old tragic choice between bad and worse alternatives, but a therapeutic alternative of either achieving instant utopia at little cost or calling it quits forever.
The problem with Mr. Kerry’s understandable mutability, however, is that real leaders are supposed to some degree to expect and then endure these bouts of public skepticism as the inevitable wage of seeing their vision through. Thucydides’ famous encomium of Pericles centered on his ability to withstand the fury of the people ? and through forbearance, unshakeable will, and patience allow his constituents to return to their senses.
The same steadfastness seems to have been central to Lincoln’s and Churchill’s successes. Neither blinked after disasters such as Antietam, the Wilderness, and Cold Harbor, or descended into panic or depression following news of horrific losses at Singapore and Dunkirk. Pericles was fined; Lincoln faced defeat in 1864; and Churchill, after staving off early censure, was finally removed from office ? but only after it was clear that his leadership had assured victory.
By contrast, Nicias, McClellan, and Chamberlain were slaves to public opinion. What vision they had was cobbled together from a sense of what the people wished in any given week ? and thus constantly subject to modification and contradiction as the collective mood soared or plummeted, predicated on the people sensing that things were either going well or worsening. Such leaders are flip-floppers not simply because the god of public opinion is volatile, but because in war the battlefield itself is unpredictable and unfathomable ? if one examines it in terms of hours, days, or weeks rather than months or years.
To this day, Americans have no idea whether Kerry thinks the entire Iraq operation was a flawed idea from the start or approves of the strategy but faults Bush on matters of tactics ? not being tough enough on looters, disbanding the Iraqi army, allowing Fallujah to fester. That these are mutually exclusive positions bothers him little when he collates the daily punditry and creates some slightly nuanced new position for the present hour.
A GLIMPSE INTO THE FUTURE
If these annoying political campaigns are in fact valuable training grounds for the presidency, then the chaos of the Kerry crusade bodes ill for us all.
Why bring up Vietnam as an exemplar of principled service when tapes exist of past slurs against the troops in the field? Why slander George W. Bush’s record when such attention will only invite commensurate investigation of one’s own controversial wartime service? Why transmogrify past antiwar activism into solid support for American military engagement when such recasting only recalls one’s similar contemporary metamorphosis, replete with the same old calls for withdrawal timetables, multilateral solutions, and the accustomed slanders against a sitting president?
Teresa Heinz Kerry charges “un-Americanism” and alleges plots to produce Osama bin Laden on the eve of the election ? all the while producing howlers such as suggesting that hurricane-devastated refugees “go naked” and quipping “Who cares?” about what happens in Arizona. She does so because, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan’s outburst in the 1980 campaign, she really is “paying for this.”
Populism is the Democratic mantra, but in the postmodern age it requires a disciplined candidate who, for just a few months, can be weaned from appearing in trendy aristocratic garb snowboarding and windsurfing only to do glum penance the next day in the mandatory jeans and hunting vest. One can’t have an assault rifle and not an assault rifle anymore than he can own and not own an SUV. But then, are those in Michigan with whom he’s not comfortable more numerous than the Cambridge crowd with whom he is?
The volatility on the part of Kerry’s handlers descends even to the superficial ? we do not know whether the candidate will appear pale, tan, or now orange. His hair may be black, gray, or salt-and-pepper, his lines smoothed or creased ? radical changes in appearance that transcend even the wear and tear of the campaign and become a metaphor for his fluctuating message. Windsurfing, orange dye on the epidermis, whitened teeth, hair tint, and teenager runabout clothes ? these are not the things that captivate auto workers, farmers, miners, and welders. So everything else Kerry has done in this disastrous campaign has only added to the image that he is an undisciplined and contradictory thinker without either strong beliefs or the moral courage to risk offending critics in pursuing his ideals.
KERRY’S IRAQ?
Kerry must either tell us why this war was a mistake and reconcile his previous conflicting statements or, in the tactical sense, criticize the present administration for allowing a stunning three-week victory to turn into a messy occupation. He must offer the American people clear correctives that suggest his initial support was wise and that the war deserved better execution.
But he has done neither ? because he does not know what the American people quite think, and doubts that his own pacifist inclinations will play well with the electorate. Railing about “them” is easy when you’re a young Vietnam-veteran activist, and even perhaps as one of 100 senators; but it’s quite a different thing when you must craft a positive policy to lead the world’s only superpower.
In truth, the only sober course in Iraq is to correct the tactical lapses (lax security during the looting, porous borders, unguarded arms depots, undisturbed terrorist sanctuaries, harassing but not eradicating Islamic fascists) in continual pursuit of larger strategic successes. The sanctuary of al Qaeda is drying up in Pakistan while its money sources from Saudi Arabia are under new audit. Libya has flipped. Iran is now under global examination. Syria is apprehensive. Afghanistan is free of theocracy. All this shrinks the world of the Islamic fascists, which before 9/11 was expanding.
Kerry should remind us that none of these recent positive developments are sustainable unless the actual fighting on the ground in Iraq results in clear-cut victory, which is tragically obtained by the sacrifices of America’s superb military. But this he will not or cannot do, either because he does believe in it or because he long ago bartered his wisdom to obtain support from the Howard Dean Left.
So Kerry flip and flops like a fish out of water, suggesting that his heart is with Howard Dean while his mind concurs with George Bush ? and thus his schizophrenia is on the verge of leading his party to a landslide defeat in the electoral college, and the loss of all branches of government with it. Americans simply have never voted for leaders who insult their allies on the battlefield, claim that their soldiers are losing, and shrug that the war is about lost. And they surely won’t this time either.
? Victor Davis Hanson is a military historian and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. His website is victorhanson.com.
Kudlow: Poll Smacks, War Facts 10/05 9:52 a.m.
Nugent: You Are Better Off Now . . . 10/05 9:38 a.m.
Ledeen: Iran, When? 10/05 9:30 a.m.
Sokolski: Kamikaze Kerry 10/05 9:24 a.m.
Gregg: Oblivion and Chaos 10/05 8:33 a.m.
Derbyshire: Let 'Em In 10/05 8:30 a.m.
Miller & Molesky: Revolting Ally 10/05 8:23 a.m.
Lowry: Fantasy Debate 10/05 8:22 a.m.
McCarthy: Shoe Bomber 2.0 10/05 8:18 a.m.
Bayefsky: Meet the Graders 10/04 8:53 p.m.
Murdock: Patriot & You 10/04 12:53 p.m.
Goldberg: Iran at the Tipping Point 10/04 12:22 p.m.
Levin: Slighting Substance 10/04 9:39 a.m.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Pro X,
I’m sure there is a humorous Kerry Waffle page that spells it out, but I’dd add:
-
vote on war resolution
-
Patriot Act vote
-
Spending in Iraq[/quote]
-
I already gave my understanding of Kerry’s stance on this issue and I don’t see waffling. I see an inability for people to see beyond what the ads and members of an opposing party tell them.
-
Please explain his waffling on this issue. I don’t agree with the extensive power this document gives the government. It seems as if people can’t see beyond the moment. It seems ok as long as they are going after “them”. It won’t be until everyone has voted for this and they actually come after one of “you” that it will hit you how dangerous this can be. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
-
Again, be specific.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Professor:
It is not diffiuclt to point out Kerry’s many “waffles” and “flip-flops.”
Please read the following article by another Professor. I think you may find it interesting as well as informative:
[/quote]
I actually found it to be overly drawn out and clearly biased. His first example for instance:
“In 1991, when in-the-know pundits warned of horrific losses, Kerry spoke against going into Kuwait. When 100 hours brought unforeseen victory, he retroactively supported Desert Storm. Finally, he returned to his previous opposition when Kurds and Shiites were left hanging in the victory’s aftermath.”
How does this show anything but someone reacting to the information they are given? You are saying that if advisors told you that we were getting into a negative situation that you would ignore them? Are you saying that regardless of how an event unfolds, you never change your view? This is seriously getting retarded. Anyone who would take information and ignore it or proceed ahead despite how a situation has greatly changed is the definition of stubborn and ignorant yet some of you act as if this is a noble character trait. I don’t get it. It seems as if you simply repeat and fall for whatever your “party” tells you. Since when did being intelligent and adaptive become a negative?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I don’t agree with the extensive power [the Patriot Act] gives the government. It seems ok as long as they are going after “them”. It won’t be until everyone has voted for this and they actually come after one of “you” that it will hit you how dangerous this can be. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.[/quote]
DING-DING-DING-DING-DING!!! Throw that man a fish! I can hardly wait to see how the Hilla-beast abuses that power if/when it takes office in early 2009! Your side will not always be in power, and the other side is sure to come up with some mighty interesting definitions for “terrorist” and “national security threat”.
Professor X -
I think you’re creating a false dichotomy between completely-unwilling-to-change on one hand and willing-to-change on the other. The criticism isn’t just about changing his mind. My Kerry criticism is for flip-flopping for naked political gain, not changing his mind due to a change in perspective, new information, etc. In other words, not for a change in how he thinks, not for a principled change. And I think that’s the position of most people who criticize Kerry for flip-flopping on major issues.
If you do change your mind, if you explain why you did so to the voters, they will say, “OK, I either agree or disagree, but I see why he did that – he didn’t just do it to curry favor.” But Kerry hasn’t given any explanations on why he changed – in fact, he mostly denies any change. Kerry, unfortunately for you, gives just that impression: changing with the political wind.
BTW, here’s link to an article from the Washington Post from back during the Democratic primaries that took a look at Senator Kerry’s Senatorial record, including flip-flops (you can read the whole thing without following the link if you pull up the thread: “Kerry’s Senate Record, Generally”):
Being intelligent and adaptive is not a negative. However, changing opinions and sides everytime you look like you just might be wrong shows zero leadership qualities.
(By the way, I wonder if our Vice President will point out all of the harsh words that John Edwards had for Kerry’s flip-flopping during the primary?)
BB,
That link is dead; probably been archived. Do you have the text saved?
PS. Congrats to you little brother.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
BB,
That link is dead; probably been archived. Do you have the text saved?
PS. Congrats to you little brother.[/quote]
Hmm, that sucks – it works in the old thread but not here…
I’ll post it below – and thanks for the congrats. I think last weekend took about a year off my life. Of course, to paraphrase Sam Kinison, I hope it was a year at the end when I can’t chew or control bodily functions…
Kerry’s 19 Years in Senate Invite Scrutiny
By Helen Dewar and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, February 8, 2004; Page A01
Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) never fails to win applause on the campaign trail when he tells audiences, “I know something about aircraft carriers for real.” It is a mocking reference to President Bush’s “mission accomplished” carrier landing last spring and a reminder that Kerry was a decorated naval officer in Vietnam.
But 20 years ago, in his first Senate campaign, Kerry talked a different language about national defense, denouncing President Ronald Reagan’s military buildup and calling for cuts of about $50 billion in the Pentagon budget, including the cancellation of a long list of weapons systems, from the B-1 bomber to the Patriot antimissile system to F-14A, F-14D and F-15 fighter jets.
As Kerry campaigns to lock up the Democratic presidential nomination, the battle to define him for a possible general election campaign against the president already has begun. The Kerry campaign and his opponents are mining his record – from his service in Vietnam, to his antiwar activities when he returned, to his positions as candidate and legislator – for ammunition.
Kerry’s 19-year record in the Senate includes thousands of votes, floor statements and debates, committee hearings and news conferences. That long paper trail shows that, on most issues, Kerry built a solidly liberal record, including support for abortion rights, gun control and environmental protection, and opposition to costly weapons programs, tax cuts for wealthy Americans and a 1996 federal law designed to discourage same-sex marriages.
But there are exceptions to that generally liberal voting record. Kerry voted for the welfare overhaul bill in 1996 that President Bill Clinton signed over the vociferous opposition of the party’s liberal wing; supported free-trade pacts, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement that organized labor opposed; backed deficit-reduction efforts in the mid-1980s, which many other Democrats opposed; and was distinctly cool toward Clinton’s health care proposal, which died after being pilloried as the embodiment of big government.
Kerry advisers see a record that demonstrates expertise with domestic and foreign policy issues, a depth of experience on national security – in and out of the Senate – that equips him to become commander in chief without on-the-job training and an acquaintance with world leaders that would give him instant credibility as president. In short, they see a record that matches up well against the sitting president, who intends to make the war on terrorism a central campaign issue.
His opponents see a record that leaves Kerry far more vulnerable. Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie, in a Jan. 29 speech, accused Kerry of being soft on defense, out of the mainstream on social issues and an heir to the liberal tradition of Massachusetts Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and 1988 Democratic nominee Michael S. Dukakis. Kerry’s record, Gillespie charged, “is one of advocating policies that would weaken our national security.”
Kerry has walked away from some of his 1984 campaign proposals to cancel weapons systems that have become central to the U.S. military arsenal unleashed on Afghanistan and Iraq while defending his overall record as a senator. Kerry told the Boston Globe earlier this year some of the proposed cancellations were “ill-advised” and “stupid,” blaming his inexperience as a candidate and a campaign that drove him to the left politically.
Stephanie Cutter, Kerry’s communications director, said in an e-mail response to questions about Kerry’s record that the senator’s views on weapons programs “evolved” once he was in office and that he used his votes to voice opposition to a defense budget he thought was “explosive and irresponsible” during Reagan’s presidency. She said Kerry has supported “responsible and appropriate” requests for defense spending, including major increases under Bush.
Kerry also proposed cuts in funding for the CIA during the 1990s but now advocates a more robust intelligence operation. A Kerry adviser said his proposed intelligence cuts were part of a broader proposal to reduce the deficit and that his goal was to reduce dependence on technological intelligence gathering and buttress human intelligence resources.
Beyond that, say Bush campaign officials, Kerry is a legislator who has few legislative accomplishments and is open to criticism for hypocrisy, as someone who votes one way and then describes those votes another way, and for political expedience, a politician who changes with the times.
Kerry supported Bush’s education proposal, known as the No Child Left Behind policy, but is now a sharp critic of the act. He, like almost everyone in the Senate, supported the USA Patriot Act after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but now denounces Attorney General John D. Ashcroft for aggressively implementing it. In the late 1980s, Kerry opposed the death penalty for terrorists who killed Americans abroad but now supports capital punishment for terrorist acts.
Although Kerry describes himself as a fiscal conservative and moderate on other issues, he ranked as the ninth most liberal senator in the National Journal’s comparison of voting records for 2002. He ranked even higher – more liberal than Kennedy – on economic issues, although about the same on social issues and more conservative on foreign policy. Americans for Democratic Action, a liberal group, rated Kerry more liberal than Kennedy during the time they served together in the Senate, although by only 1 percentage point.
Kerry has one of the Senate’s most consistent records in support of abortion rights, including voting against a bill passed last year to ban what critics call “partial birth” abortion procedures. He has also voted against several proposals to require parental notification before a minor can get an abortion, although campaign sides said he favors – and has voted for – some “adult” involvement in the decision – by judge, doctor or counselor, if not a parent.
He has also been in the forefront of efforts to strengthen laws protecting the environment, most recently including an unsuccessful fight to require tougher fuel efficiency standards and another (successful so far) to keep the ban on drilling for oil and gas in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Kerry has voted against Bush’s tax-cut proposals, usually supporting Democratic alternatives that provide more relief to lower- and middle-income taxpayers and less to the rich, those making more than $200,000. He opposed the Medicare prescription drug bill that Bush signed late last year but missed the vote on final passage of the measure. In 1996, he was one of 14 senators, all Democrats, to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act, which said no state would have to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state. But Kerry has said during the campaign that he opposes gay marriage.
In perhaps his biggest break with liberal orthodoxy, Kerry was one of relatively few Democrats to vote for the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings bill in the 1980s to force spending cuts to meet binding budget targets. Later he voted to give presidents “line-item veto” authority over individual items in appropriations bills.
Nowhere has Kerry been challenged more for voting one way and talking another than on Iraq, both for his vote in support of the war in 2002 and his vote opposing the Persian Gulf War in 1991.
In 2002, he voted for the resolution authorizing Bush to go to war unilaterally, but then became one of Bush’s harshest critics for having done so. Kerry, in his floor speech before the vote, warned Bush to build an international coalition through the United Nations, but the resolution did not require the president to gain U.N. approval before going to war. Kerry later said he was voting not for the use of force but for the threat of force.
In January 1991, Kerry opposed the resolution authorizing Bush’s father to go to war to eject Iraq from Kuwait, arguing that the U.N. sanctions then in place should be given more time to work. When former Vermont governor Howard Dean recently challenged Kerry to square those two votes, aides said that the 1991 vote was not one in opposition to the use of force, just as Kerry has said his 2002 vote was not in support of the use of force.
In his 1991 floor speech, Kerry accused President George H.W. Bush of engaging in a “rush to war” – language similar to that he used in criticizing the current president on the eve of the Iraq war a year ago. Kerry argued in 1991 that there was no need to pass the resolution to send a message threatening force against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, although that was his justification for supporting the 2002 resolution.
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.
From his Senate colleagues, Kerry gets high marks for intellectual skills and hard work but has the same reputation for aloofness – some say arrogance – that dogged his presidential campaign, at least in its early days.
Working his entire Senate career in Kennedy’s shadow, Kerry had to fight for attention and choose issues such as the environment and fiscal discipline that did not get in the way of Kennedy’s signature causes, principally health care and education.
Kerry’s high-profile investigations, such as his probes of the deposed leader of Panama, Gen. Manuel Noriega, and the scandal-ridden Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), have led some colleagues to complain privately that he has been more of a show horse than a workhorse.
Others argue that the investigations bore fruit and point to his POW-MIA hearings on whether Americans were still being held in Vietnam, noting that they led to eventual normalization of relations between the two countries. Also, Kerry supporters say he has been intensely involved in difficult behind-the-scenes work on environmental and other legislation for which he has received little public credit.
As Dean pointed out in a debate in South Carolina, Kerry has few if any laws that bear his name. But neither do many other influential senators, because most bills are folded into other legislation and put in final form by committees, whose senior members are usually identified as sponsors. Kerry is a senior member of the foreign relations, finance and commerce committees but has chaired only the small-business committee – a far less prestigious panel than the others – for a brief period.
“He’s intelligent, he’s serious, a real hard worker . . . but he’s not in the cloakroom telling dirty jokes . . . like some of 'em,” said Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.), who has endorsed Kerry’s presidential bid. Hollings and Kerry disagree on many issues, including trade, but Hollings remembers how Kerry helped him with legislation to protect the textile industry during the 1980s.
According to a Republican senator, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, Kerry is viewed by many GOP senators as a political clone of Kennedy. “They don’t know him very well because they haven’t worked with him,” this senator said. “And Kerry doesn’t go out of his way to be loved by everybody.”
But Republicans who have worked with him, especially the closely knit bipartisan brotherhood of Vietnam veterans in the Senate, see a more complicated portrait of Kerry. “He’s bright, very articulate, tough . . . the complete package,” said Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), a Vietnam vet who is personally close to Kerry. “He’s the most difficult opponent we can face in November.”
Staff researcher Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.
Here’s a really interesting, link-filled post that touches on Kerry’s evasive answers and positions – it’s from University of Wisconsin Law Professor Ann Althouse, and it basically tracks how Kerry lost her as a vote (She was a strong Gore voter in 2000):
When Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense, he also called for the cutting of these weapons programs. Kerry’s votes follow the recommendations of the Secreatry of Defense. In fact Cheney once boasted that as Secretary of Defense, he had cut more weapons programs than any other Secretary of Defense.
Another interesting flip flop by Cheney: He was against finishing Saddam off in 1991 (as was George Bush Sr.)
-
The “war resolution” only authorizes the president to use force under certain conditions, which George Bush DID NOT MEET. Read the actual resolution if you want to clear this up. It was not a resolution for war, it only gave the president power to act… IF he met certain conditions.
-
Patriot Act vote. The bill was rushed through Congress before it could be read and debated. In the days post-911 there was a rush to do anything possible to protect the country. Many Congreessmen voted for the Patriot Act but now oppose it… including Republicans.
-
Funding for the troops. Kerry voted for the bill, before he voted against it. When the bill contained a provision to pay for the bill by rolling back the tax cuts on the wealthiest 2% of Americans, Kery was for it. When that provision was removed, and the bill would be funded by deficit spending, Kerry was against it.
By the same token, Republicans also flip flopped… they voted AGAINST the bill before they voted FOR it.
Kerry is certainly FOR arming the troops properly, he just thinks we should pay for it ourselves and not run it up on our grandkids’ credit cards. Rather than burden the middle class with additional taxes, Kerry proposes rolling back the Bush tax cuts on Americans who can best afford it: the wealthiest 2% of Americans.
What never gets discussed is that this spending bill, which funds body armor for the troops, only came SEVEN MONTHS after the invasion. Team Bush sent 40,000 troops into battle without the proper equipment, and it took seven months until they even began to address the problem. How many of our guys died or lost limbs because they were rushed into battle without the right equipment?
Lumpy,
Let’s do look at the war resolution.
a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to–
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but not later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that–
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
“…as he determines to be necessary and appropriate”
“…enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq”
You mean like a breach of ceasefire?
“…is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq”
As in countries with a big stake in the illegal Oil-for-Food scam use their veto secure the very profitable status quo?
Face it - everyone who signed that resolution knew that it was a near carte-blanche authorization for the President to use force. That’s why those that didn’t vote for it - wait for it - didn’t vote for it.
Kerry is an intelligent man. The language is clear. It was an authorization to go to war. Given all that Kerry has said, he shouldn’t have - couldn’t have - voted for this thing in good conscience.
To suggest he thought it was something different is flatly dishonest.