John Kerry: “I have one position on Iraq…”
Per day?
At the moment?
But it changes as the wind blows…
Nice try, but when your “one position” has been about a dozen since October of 2002, it’s hard to believe that this latest position is anything more than the usual flip-flops and repositioning about the issue. Besides, if Kerry really had one position on Iraq, why in hell would he be needing to remind people of the fact?
George Bush has just as many voices in his head over Iraq as you claim Kerry has. One day, his argument was based on non-existent WMD stockpiles with which Hussein was planning to wage unthinkable terror on us. The next day, we needed to stop Hussein to avenge the September 11 attacks. The next day, it was essential to start a war in Iraq so we could bring the war to the Middle East and keep terrorist heat off of American soil. The next day, we needed to use war as a tool of liberation for oppressed Iraqi peasants.
And we’re supposed to believe John Kerry is the guy who’s inconsistent about his position on Iraq?
Wow… talk about desperation. Apparently you missed 2002-2003 where Bush repeatedly talked about every one of those factors.
I know it’s a shock, but there can be more than one justification for the decision to go to war at a time.
No wonder the Kerry Kampaign is sinking in the polls faster than the Titanic…
The problem with saying things like “the next day”, is that people might take you literally. Was it really the very next day? Can you prove that? Did Jay say or, for that matter, can he prove that Kerry switched his position after a day?
I think the of the various positions you question above, none of them are contradictory. Could it be that a War in Iraq is a good way to ensure that Saddam Hussain does not have or can not obtain WMD and ensure that terrorists focus their efforts in preventing a democratic, liberated Iraq?
Think about it, is it possible?
How can this be a flip flop when there hasn’t been a flop to the flip? The flop to this flip would be Bush saying that he isn’t for the war. Or you might consider it a flop if Bush pleaded the case to hastily retreat from Iraq (considering his covention speech).
Novak’s recent editorial brings light to that last point. That’s a flop. All the points you brought above, in my opinion, are not.
Kerry said last month that he would have voted again to give Bush approval to use force in Iraq, now he’s said he would not have. He’s said that we need to win in Iraq, but he has no plan for doing so and he’s said he will pull troops out by the end of his first term. His position in Iraq has been incoherent.
He said that not approving the $87 billion for the troops with or without the tax-raising amendment would be “irresponsible” and tantamount to abandoning our troops. Then he voted against it anyway.
Kerry tried to have it both ways on Iraq and failed. He has no plan for Iraq except surrender.
As for Novak, he’s full of it. There’s no pullout plan and every indication says that Bush plans a large offensive in the Sunni Triangle to root out the terrorists in advance of the January elections (in fact, to not do so would be catastrophic).