This morning's New York Times in part reveals Bush's counter. U.S. Plans Year-End Drive to Take Iraqi Rebel Areas, it announces; in other words, Bush is going to say, Trust me, after the election we'll kick these Jihaddi's right out and everything will come up roses. Which is brilliant political strategy: it allows those with wavering faith in Bush to hold onto the idea that "just one more push" will make everything break our way, *without* the casualties happening *before* the election. Problems in Iraq? Wait until after the election --we'll drive those insurgents out! Bombings? Loss of control? Wait until after the election -- you'll see, it'll all work out! What, you don't think our magnificent troops can't do the job? Are you not supporting the troops?
Domestic failure is undeniable and obvious -- everybody knows they're losing health insurance; everybody knows they're working more for less; everyone can see the tax math that makes the richer richer and themselve worse off; everyone can see the massive deficits. But Iraq, for most Americans, is this remote place they can't even find on a map. The dead American soldiers are someone else's kids. The dead Iraqis don't even matter. And now Bush announces that *after* the election, the great glorious military victory will come. Sure, maybe things haven't gone so well in Iraq, but just you wait!
Every minute we talk about Iraq is a moment we give Bush another chance to be The Great War President. Bush can't erase his deficits or reclaim his jobs with a stroke of his pen, but he can always bomb something. Everyone knows that this post-election offensive will work about as well as every other -- that is, not at all -- but by that point it'll be a little too late. And this is in part perhaps why we need to be very, very careful how we play the Iraq card...
Posted by Perlin at September 19, 2004 03:33 AMThe republicans have made this election about feeling safe. They made the convention about 9/11 to remind people what it felt like to be scared.
The KE campaign tried to refocus on domestic policy and failed. Time is running out.
Kerry's attack on Iraq is the right thing to do, but it's folly to think people will vote for him without a counter strategy unless they were going to anyway. People don't believe he can get international support, because he hasn't said he'd open up rebuilding contracts to international bidding (as opposed to admin crony company no-bids), which he'd clearly have to in order to buy support at this point.
This is iffy. Iraq is a quagmire, and no one has easy answers because there are none.
Where Kerry can and *must* focus his message is on the threat of terrorism. Our borders are wide open, crossing into Arizona is a joke, 3 million people are estimated to have gotten in last year. Couple this with the fact that practically nothing has been done to harden domestic high value targets against terrorist activity and you have a real reason for people to be afraid.
Bridges, power, water supplies, dams, not to mention dirty bombs, contagions, chemical toxins. It's all wide open. With so many domestic targets, the Bush administration has come out and said they're practically expecting an attack. Why? Because they haven't done anything substantive to protect us at home.
The muslim world is enraged at US foreign policy, particularly in arab countries. Many of insurgents fighting in Iraq aren't even Iraqis, they're others from the region who hate our nation's policies, and increasingly, each and every one of us for supporting those policies.
Bush has made this country less safe than it's ever been, by not protecting domestic targets and by laser focusing what was previously a less numerous and angry force on us. We're not winning 'The War on Terror', our international policies under this administration have only exacerbated what was already a serious problem.
Posted by enough at September 19, 2004 05:22 AM"less angry" force???
How do you get any angrier than sending 4 jets into civilian targets and killing over 3,000 people.
This is why Kerry is being demolished right now, a LACK of UNDERSTANDING OF THE WAR WE ARE IN.
Posted by ROOF at September 19, 2004 06:27 AMKerry isn't being 'demolished' right now. He's holding his own in polls that don't even count all voters. I say he's going to win, and I've been saying that for a long time. If you stop watching the news and start talking to your neighbors, you find a significant rejection of George Bush. We may see things turn decisively at the last minute.
As to the Iraqi focus, why not? Domestic issues slide in under the radar, and when there's something like Iraq going on the challenger can't ignore it. I hope he'll announce a pullback during the debates, something Bush can't endorse himself. Kerry's been comatose before, and he's won at the last minute. Let's hope he rises from the grave once again.
Posted by karen hughes at September 19, 2004 07:16 AMAre you safer now than you were 3,2,1 year ago? NO. Iraq wasn't a threat to America, NOW it is. Osama bin-Laden/Al Qaeda was a threat to you, and they still are. Who is is charge of your safety? Why is he failing you? Where is Osama bin-Forgotten? Why are we still fighting in Afghanistan and why is the Taliban is still in power? Why is Junior straining the military and the National Guard, spending oodles of money and taking away from investing that money back here at home, when Iraq wasn't a threat? Why because Junior created that threat. Yes he did. And maybe we could have even more tax cuts if we hadn't wasted all that money in Iraq, the country that wasn't a threat but Now is.
The effing War strategery of Junior, the same man who promised us a flower throwing, cakewalk Iraqi democracy in 6 months at a cost of 1 billion dollars....hahahaha. Wow it is amazing how there are people who actually think this man and those really running the show possess an understanding of the WAR we are in. I guess John McCain, who recently said our troops will be bogged down in Iraq for at least 10-20 years, doesn't understand the WAr we are in either. Same as General Odom, General Shinseki, General Hoar, Colin Powell, or McPeak,General Clark, and All those career CIA and defense intelligence analyst that have said we have lost the WAr already just don't understand what type of WAR we are in either.
I mean, why rely on experts when the CIC and most of his draft dogding civilian buddies (Cheney, Rummy, Wolfowitz, Feith) running the show have just been so accurate on this WAR of choice from the get go. They obviously have such a firm understanding/grasp of the reality of just what type of WAr we are in...you know the one you sign up and play on the computer, It's called Fanstasy War, sort of like Fantasy Football.
Just wait, til after the elections, when I call for the draft,and thousands of US troops die when we go in by force and annihalate those savages, bombing the bejesus out of those freedom hating Eye-racki's who need to be taught a lesson. I'll give ya your freedom...right here at the end of this MOAB. (Gee Junior just what are you waiting for? Oh yeah, just need to hold off until after the elections so I don't have too many troops killed that might affect the outcome of election, that's part of the WAR strategy too-just wait til after the election to win it).
Posted by emal at September 19, 2004 07:18 AMin a perfect world Kerry would have been attacking and defining Bush since the spring (as I have been saying since February) so that he could use the fall to look and talk presidential with a forward-looking message.
But there's no way that Kerry would have gotten away with eight months of criticism--the howls from the Right would have been deafening. At most, Kerry was going to get a couple of months' worth of serious campaigning without the press basically calling him a traitor.
Now is the time. Kerry knows what needs to be done.
Posted by Matt Davis at September 19, 2004 07:30 AMIt may have been said, but I dont think he will stop talking economic issues. For many, Iraq and the economy seem tied together for some reason. And I think that it is a risk worth taking because polls show people dissaisfied with the economy and the way the country is going. So the economy will be a backseat driver of this election.
Posted by Tim at September 19, 2004 08:25 AMI concur with those pointing out that we know well what the Kerry/Edwards policy goals regarding healthcare and jobs creation are. It is safe to move on to other issues.
The idiot son of George Bush's juglar is Iraq, and foreign policy overall. It's time for Kerry to take the part of the Bush electorate that is scared, yet realizes Bushco is clueless, and has been clueless all along.
If a person is afraid, they should still be scared shitless of OBL. He wanted nukes, and when he gets them, he will use them on the United States. Period. What is the Bush plan? What does the chimperor say about OSB?
BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]
...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]
"Poppy, I did Iraq! Do you love me now?"
Posted by phidipides at September 19, 2004 08:30 AMHow do you get any angrier than sending 4 jets into civilian targets and killing over 3,000 people.
attacking iraq after 9/11 was like if fdr had attacked china after pearl harbor. sure, to a xenophobic ignoramus they look alike, but on closer inspection saddam and osama don't like each other, never have, never will.
OTOH bush did pull US troops out of saudi as per osama's demands, plus took the heat off of him in afghanistan to fulfill his little oedipal drama (1032 US dead as of today). so maybe his strategy of capitulation (cf Falluja, Najaf) will make us safer. I guess that's the argument for bush's re-election: Strength through Weakness.
Posted by flatulus benjoya at September 19, 2004 08:54 AMHow do you get any angrier than sending 4 jets into civilian targets and killing over 3,000 people.
attacking iraq after 9/11 was like if fdr had attacked china after pearl harbor. sure, to a xenophobic ignoramus they look alike, but on closer inspection saddam and osama don't like each other, never have, never will.
OTOH bush did pull US troops out of saudi as per osama's demands, plus took the heat off of him in afghanistan to fulfill his little oedipal drama (1032 US dead as of today). so maybe his strategy of capitulation (cf Falluja, Najaf) will make us safer. I guess that's the argument for bush's re-election: Strength through Weakness.
Posted by flatulus benjoya at September 19, 2004 08:55 AMKerry on Iraq: "With all due respect to the president, has he turned on the evening news lately? Does he read the newspapers?"
No he doesn't; I thought the president had put that question behind him a long time ago.
Posted by flatulus benjoya at September 19, 2004 09:15 AMif fdr had attacked china after pearl harbor
just to poke a hole in my lame historical analogy before some genius troll does it, i believe broad reconciliation between china and japan is possible and a thousand times more likely than the possibility that saddam and osama would ever share so much as a cup of coffee.
Posted by flatulus benjoya at September 19, 2004 09:22 AMFair to point out that FDR in 44 didnt run on the fact that Pearl Harbor was his finest hour because it wasnt, and neither was 9/11 for Bush.
Posted by J at September 19, 2004 09:27 AMFair to point out that FDR in 44 didnt run on the fact that Pearl Harbor was his finest hour because it wasnt, and neither was 9/11 for Bush.
But J, Why are you the only one who knows that?
9-11 happened on Bush's watch. He wears it like a badge of courage. He gets credit for 9-11 when 3000 people were killed. How insane is that? It was on his watch. He was asleep at the wheel. This is the greatest spin in the history of the world!
W cn thr nd th wr wth vctry r w cn nd t wth srrndr, gvng th trrr mstrs cntry thy cn cll thr wn. Th vry ntr f Krry's cnddcy cmmncts th mprssn tht mrc s dvdd nd wk, nsprng thm t cntnd crng. Srly thy r fmlr wth Krry's ndqcy n ntnl dfns, nd thy r cntng n ngh mrcns bng lk hm tht thr dblc mbtns cn shrtly b rlzd. f mrcns dn't hv th tncty t d whtvr t tks t dft ths nmy, thn r ftr s blk ndd.
[Editor: ignore=off]Well said Steve.
It is a risky strategy... but not because it sucks air from other issues DEMs want to focus on, but because it became riskier every time during the past year that Kerry declined to seize the opportunities he was handed to change or modify his course instead of reinforcing that he did not err with his IWR vote. Unfortunately his IWR vote will remain his Achilles heel - it was no less clear to me two years ago than it is today.
Better late than never because the only path to challenging GWB's WOT runs straight through Baghdad. Damage that and all the domestic issues will automatically benefit Kerry and be decisive.
Posted by Marie at September 19, 2004 10:21 AMBendito
Funny thing last night both Buchanan and Novak called for the withdraw of our troops from Iraq. They must be big Kerry supporters.
Source Novak Capital Gang
Buchanan McGlaughlin Group
Rasmussen daily poll today with leaners Kerry down one point.
Posted by john o at September 19, 2004 10:43 AMWhat Kerry ought to do is start saying some things like this:
Plain language. Direct and to the point. These are the things Americans understand, not nuances on shifting and difficult to manage international and ad hoc alliances and antagonists. Kerry promises Americans we'll win and he can deliver those wins, then Kerry wins the election, because Bush demonstrably can't deliver. Kerry also keeps it optimistic in this manner, and Americans like happy winners. Go Kerry! Go Kerry!
Posted by Brian Bell at September 19, 2004 11:37 AMso after spending 240 millions, we are down to this, IRAQ. WTF !
Kerry is listening to too many advisers, thus he can't decide on a coherent message for his campaign.
Posted by at September 19, 2004 11:53 AMI happen to agree that Kerry can make the case for why we would should have not gone into IRAQ. However, I also believe that he cannot forget the domestic issues which clearly matter in a campaign this close. Kerry need to slam Bush hard on both foreign and domestic policies. After all it Bush record over these four years that in question. At the same time it Bush policies that has gotten us in the mess and heading our country in the wrong direction.
Posted by smith9898 at September 19, 2004 12:25 PMThe Grand Deception:
'Kerry, War Hero,' Is a Myth
ROY F. HOFFMANN
GUEST COLUMNIST Sep 19, 2004
The widely repeated myth of "John Kerry, the Vietnam Navy Hero" is one of the most dishonorable and dangerous deceptions ever perpetrated upon the American public.
John Kerry is not a hero. He built this facade with unabashed personal promotion, aided and abetted by a supportive liberal media ready and willing to repeat in print his gross exaggerations, distortions of fact, and outright lies about his abbreviated four-month, 12-day tour of duty in Vietnam.
Until the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth spoke up in press conferences, television ads, and with the now best-selling book, Unfit for Command, no one - not even the conservative media - seriously or effectively challenged the veracity of John Kerry's self-aggrandizement. Only now is his war-hero facade beginning to peel away.
Kerry arrived in Vietnam on November 17, 1968, with a strong anti-war bias and a self-serving determination to build a foundation for a future political career. Even a most casual review of his biography, Tour of Duty by Douglas Brinkley, will reveal that Kerry entered the Naval Reserve as a "vain intellectual" with contempt for military authority.
Stooped to Achieve Goal
In hindsight, his obvious objective was to emulate his idol, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, serve as short a time as possible, and escape Vietnam unscathed but with sufficient credentials and decorations to portray himself in heroic terms. To achieve his goal, Kerry stooped to scamming an after-combat reporting system that was based on trust, promoting himself for a handful of medals regardless of their dubious merits, so he could "bug out" of the war zone early.
His propensity for gross exaggeration and lying was legend to those who knew him, even early on at Cam Rahn Bay, his first duty station in Vietnam. In Tour of Duty, Kerry recounts the story of the seas being so rough during the monsoon season that sailors came in "pissing red and that several people have broken bones" - a ridiculous story that was totally unsubstantiated.
Or consider the story of how Kerry, according to Brinkley, stated, "A sampan navigating in the shroud of darkness was assumed to be Viet Cong and would be fired on" - a breach of the U.S. Navy's rules of engagement. That is an outright defamatory lie. The South Vietnamese National Government had established and promulgated well-defined coastal-control zones to facilitate surveillance, illegal activity, and infiltration of enemy arms from seaward. Although our Swift Boats and Coast Guard cutters did diligently enforce the restricted areas, a boat or ship violating a restricted zone would not be fired upon unless attempting to escape inspection, and only after proper warning in accordance with U.S. Navy strict rules of engagement.
Kerry repeatedly embellishes this lie by referring to "U.S. designated free-fire zones," implying that such zones authorized indiscriminate killing, in order to portray the U.S. military as unwanted, brutish conquerors in Vietnam. In truth, free-fire zones fell within the normal rules of engagement and authorized not an order to fire but discretion to fire first if threatened by, or when confronting, enemy forces.
Kerry's First Purple Heart
Another troubling sequence involves Kerry's first Purple Heart. Exactly two weeks after arrival in Vietnam, Kerry was involved in a scenario in which he was "wounded" by a small fragment, about the size of a rose thorn - a self-inflicted wound resulting from the careless use of his own M-79 grenade launcher. According to the testimony of the attending physician, Dr. Louis Letson, the fragment barely penetrated the skin of his right arm and was easily removed with tweezers and dressed with a Band-Aid. Despite the minor nature of the injury, Kerry still requested a Purple Heart from Division Commander Grant Hibbard. Commander Hibbard denied, noting that there was no hostile fire involved in the incident, no casualty report, and no after-action report - all requisites for a Purple Heart medal.
Still, somehow Kerry circumvented the system and somehow was awarded the Purple Heart some three months after Lt. Commander Hibbard denied the award. Who initiated the award remains a mystery and will remain so until Kerry authorizes the full release of his military and medical records, complete and unaltered. Although Kerry continues to imply that he was the officer in charge of this "Boston Whaler" operation, he fails to mention that he was under the training supervision of Lt. William Schachte, the actual officer in charge and aboard the small craft with Kerry.
Another example of Kerry's lies about his Vietnam "war hero" status involves the now infamous secret mission into Cambodia on Christmas Day, 1968, a fabrication now disclaimed by Kerry campaign spokesman Michael Meehan and Kerry's campaign biographer Douglas Brinkley.
On March 27, 1986, the then-Senator Kerry on the floor of the U.S. Senate claimed he was on Navy duty in Cambodia in Christmas, 1968, at a time when President Nixon was lying to the public, saying there were no U.S. forces in Cambodia at that time. The Congressional Record reports Kerry as saying, "I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have the memory which is seared - seared - in me."
Not even a good lie. President Nixon did not take office until January 20, 1969. Moreover, how does one differentiate the ethnic and political distinctions of the unseen foes shooting at you? As one lie begets another, Kerry's own biographer, Douglas Brinkley, writes in Tour of Duty that Kerry's private Vietnam journal places him on the Bassac River near the city of Sa Dec, Vietnam, 50 miles from the Cambodian border.
Further, the U.S. Army had placed on 24-hour surveillance a manned landing craft blocking passage into Cambodian waters, along with a huge sign designed to prevent entrance, accidental or otherwise, into Cambodian waters. The U.S. Navy also had two river patrol boats patrolling the area for the same reason, making it almost impossible for a U.S. craft to enter Cambodian waters.
Lt. (jg.) Kerry's third Purple Heart is as questionable as the first. On March 13, 1969, Kerry's boat, PCF-94, with provincial troops embarked was engaged in an infantry sweep of a known Viet Cong sanctuary on the Dong Cong canal, in An Xuyen province. During this operation, the troops blew up some huge bins of rice. According to Kerry's biography, "I got a piece of small grenade in my [rear] from one of the rice bin explosions." Kerry would later the same day claim this accidental and minor injury was a result of a mine explosion near his boat that threw him into a bulkhead, smashing his arm.
The truth is that there was only one explosion, and that this single explosion severely damaged PCF-3 near the opposite bank of the Bay Hop River. There was no damage to any other of the five Swift Boats in that formation.
Claims of Making Rescue
Based on the after-action report filed by Lt. (jg.) Kerry, he was awarded a Purple Heart for wounds resulting from a mine explosion and a Bronze Star with a "V" for rescuing Lt. Rassmann, U.S. Army, who fell overboard when Kerry's PCF-94 abruptly fled the scene of action.
Contrary to the false after-action report citing automatic weapons and rifle fire from both banks for 3.1 miles, there were six on-scene witnesses who have stated that there was no enemy fire from either bank. Kerry did return to the scene and pick up Rassmann after it was evident that there was no hostile fire. There was nothing heroic about rescuing Rassmann, who was about to be picked up by another PCF. Had the truth been known, Kerry would have been disqualified from being awarded the Bronze Star.
Medical records also report Kerry's injuries from the March 13, 1968, incident involved only a minor bruise on his right arm and minor shrapnel wounds on his buttocks. Since there was no hostile fire, and only one mine explosion, with no structural effect on PCF-94, there was no justification for the Purple Heart award.
John Kerry was the only man in the entire Task Force of 3,600 men - officers and enlisted - to request transfer out of country based on three Purple Hearts. Particularly galling to his shipmates was the fact that not one of his minor nicks was debilitating nor resulted in one lost day of duty.
Nevertheless, with his three specious Purple Hearts, John Kerry shamelessly invoked an obscure Navy directive allowing him to "jump ship" and return home, there to begin his infamous betrayal of all those U.S. soldiers, Marines, sailors, airmen, and POWs who served honorably in the Vietnam War - more than 2 million Americans who deserved Kerry's respect.
Kerry's leadership within the fraudulent and contemptible Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) and his testimony before Senator William Fulbright's Committee in 1971 charging us with unspeakable atrocities remain even today an unspecified and undocumented dishonor to the men and women who dutifully and courageously stayed the course.
Meeting With Madame Binh
Kerry's meeting with Madame Binh representing the Viet Cong and with other members of the Vietnamese Communist delegations to the Paris Peace Conference in 1970, while he was yet a Naval Reserve officer, constitute meeting with the enemy during time of war. His subsequent press conference in July, 1971, urging President Nixon to accept Madame Binh's proposal for the return of our POWs , was a major propaganda victory for the Communist regime. His illegal and traitorous activities with the VVAW and the ilk of Jane Fonda unquestionably had a seriously demoralizing impact on our POWs and probably extended their imprisonment by at least two years.
Kerry is not a hero. He betrayed his comrades-in-arms in time of war. He is a chronic liar and a fraud. This is not about politics; it's about truthfulness, reliability, loyalty, and trust - all absolute tenets of command. John Forbes Kerry is not fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America.
Roy Hoffmann, a retired Navy Rear Admiral and the founder of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, is a resident of Chesterfield. As the commander of the Coastal Surveillance Force Vietnam in 1968-1969, Admiral Hoffman was the overall commander of U.S. Swift Boats during the period of Kerry's Vietnam coastal service.
Posted by at September 19, 2004 12:37 PMjust read the above article
KERRY HAS NO CREDIBILITY ON THE iRAG WAR OR ANY WAR
Posted by ROOF at September 19, 2004 12:38 PMDamn Windows!
If Kerry has no war credibility, then a deserter from the Texas Air National Guard has even less!
Posted by pessimist at September 19, 2004 12:53 PMWho was the anonymous poster above? In which publication did the piece from the credibility-challenged Mr. Hoffmann appear? Please provide the link and the name of the poster please.
Posted by Steve Soto at September 19, 2004 01:01 PMYawn, he we go they must be worried about the MAJOR Bush dip in the poles.
Posted by john o at September 19, 2004 01:05 PMRaw story headline:
EVIDENCE OF POSSIBLE TAMPERING IN BUSH FILE AS RELEASED BY WHITE HOUSE... Developing tonight...
Posted by john o at September 19, 2004 01:08 PMKERRY HAS NO CREDIBILITY ON THE "WAR" ISSUE
IRAQ WAR
FLIPS: SUPPORTS USE OF FORCE AGAINST IRAQ
October 1990
"Today, we are confronted by a regional power, Iraq, which has attacked a weaker state, Kuwait...The crisis is even more threatening by virtue of the fact that Iraq has developed a chemical weapons capability, and is pursuing a nuclear weapons development program. And Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons of mass destruction in the past, whether in his war against Iran or against his own Kurdish population." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/2/90, p. S14330)
January 1991
"If we go to war in the next few days, it will not be because our immediate vital interests are so threatened and we have no other choice. It is not because of nuclear, chemical, biological weapons when, after all, Saddam Hussein had all those abilities or was working toward them for years..." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 1/12/91, p. S369)
November 1997
"It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were to develop and successfully militarize and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences. Extremely small quantities of several known biological weapons have the capability to exterminate the entire population of cities the size of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. These could be delivered by ballistic missile, but they also could be delivered by much more pedestrian means; aerosol applicators on commercial trucks easily could suffice. If Saddam were to develop and then deploy usable atomic weapons, the same holds true." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)
December 1997
"The Security Council should authorize a strong UN military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. …Saddam Hussein has intentionally or inadvertently set up a test which the entire world will be watching, and if he gets away with this arrogant ploy, he will have terminated the most important multilateral effort to defuse a legitimate threat to global security." ("US Lawmakers Threaten Military Action Against Iraq," Agence France Presse, 12/12/97)
February 1998
"[T]here are set of principles here that are very large, larger in some measure than I think has been adequately conveyed, both internationally and certainly to the American people. Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East." (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)
"Saddam Hussein has violated … that standard [against using weapons of mass destruction] on several occasions previously and by most people's expectation, no matter what agreement we come up with, may well do so again. The greater likelihood is that we will be called on to send our ships and our troops at one point in the future back to the Middle East to stand up to the next crisis." (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)
September 1998
"We’re Going To Have To Make Some Fundamental Decisions About Whether To Follow A Policy Of Containment Or Deprive Iraq Of Its Weapons Of Mass Destruction." (Eric Schmitt, "U.N. Arms Inspector Who Quit Is Told He Can’t Make Policy," The New York Times, 9/4/98)
December 1998
"Americans need to really understand the gravity and legitimacy of what is happening with Saddam Hussein. He has been given every opportunity in the world to comply. The president does not control the schedule of UNSCOM. The president did not withdraw the UNSCOM inspectors. And the president did not, obviously, cut a deal with Saddam Hussein to do this at this moment. Saddam Hussein has not complied. Saddam Hussein is pursuing a program to build weapons of mass destruction." (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 12/16/98)
September 2000
"There Is Nothing More Destabilizing Or Threatening [To The World] Than Weapons Of Mass Destruction. ... I think all of us are deeply concerned about the degree to which certain countries seem to be contributing to the potential of instability in the world. Obviously, there is nothing more destabilizing or threatening than weapons of mass destruction. We have spent an enormous amount of time and energy focused on Iraq, on Iran, on Russia, on loose nukes, on nuclear materials, and of course on China and on the issue of the transfer of technology to Pakistan." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 9/11/00, p. S8321)
October 2002
"Mr. Kerry … Said Iraq’s Weapons Of Mass Destruction Posed ‘A Real And Grave Threat’ To The United States."(Dave Boyer, "Key Senators Of Both Parties Back Bush On Iraq War," The Washington Times, 10/10/02)
"Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don’t even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents? Does he do all of these things because he wants to live by international standards of behavior? Because he respects international law? Because he is a nice guy underneath it all and the world should trust him?" (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171)
"It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171)
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171)
January 2003
"[W]e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America’s response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world’s response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 1/23/03)
"If You Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn’t Vote For Me."(Ronald Brownstein, "On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd," Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)
February 2003
Kerry Said Leaving Saddam Hussein "Unfettered With Nuclear Weapons Or Weapons Of Mass Destruction Is Unacceptable." (Jill Lawrence, "War Issue Challenges Democratic Candidates," USA Today, 2/12/03)
"[Kerry] said the Bush administration has taken too long to make its case for military action, ‘but nonetheless I am glad we’ve reached this moment in our diplomacy.’ Kerry added: ‘Convincing evidence of Saddam Hussein’s possession of weapons of mass destruction should trigger, I believe, a final ultimatum from the United Nations for a full, complete, immediate disarmament of those weapons by Iraq. Over the next hours, I will work with my colleagues in the Senate to fully examine the evidence offered by the secretary for a complete and close reading. But, on its face, the evidence against Saddam Hussein appears real and compelling.’" (Wayne Washington, "Kennedy, Others Question Timing Of Attack But Presidential Hopefuls Back War With Iraq," The Boston Globe, 2/6/03)
March 2003
"Senator John F. Kerry … had lambasted Bush’s diplomatic efforts, despite voting last fall in support of a congressional resolution authorizing military action to disarm Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction. ‘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,’ Kerry said." (Glen Johnson, "Critics Of Bush Voice Support For The Troops," The Boston Globe, 3/20/03)
I think Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that’s why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him. I think we need to …" (NPR’s "All Things Considered," 3/19/03)
FLOP: CLAIMED HE VOTED ONLY “TO THREATEN” USE OF FORCE IN IRAQ
“I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Announcement Of Presidential Candidacy, Mount Pleasant, SC, 9/2/03)
FLOP: CRITICIZES 'WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION' ARGUMENT
"[The Bush Administration] ought to be held accountable for using the 'weapons of mass destruction' argument. Dick Cheney and others in the administration misled the American people with respect to the true status of the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
(CBS "Face the Nation," January 25, 2004)
Editor's Note: I guess he forgot he made the argument, too.
FLOP: CLAIMS HE IS ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE
This same Kerry now depicts Bush as having duplicitously misled the nation into war against Saddam based on a deliberate misrepresentation of the WMD threat. And Kerry now terms the countries fighting in alliance with the United States in Iraq "a coalition of the coerced and the bribed."
CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it’s been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?”
KERRY: “I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 1/6/04)
Posted by at September 19, 2004 01:19 PMFOUR REASONS BUSH IS AN UNDERDOG (1) A self-described "war president" needs to be winning the war at re- election time. U.S. troops are bogged down in Iraq, and the death toll is growing. (2) Bush and his party represent a declining demographic. The Republican Party is a white, male, Anglo-Saxon Protestant party, as photos from its convention show. (3) Re-election is not the presidential norm. Only 11 presidents have served eight consecutive years. President Reagan was the last Republican president to be re-elected. (4) Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000. The three presidents who failed the first time around to win the popular vote did not return to the White House.
Martin F. Nolan, a veteran political reporter, is a fellow at the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
http://www.flipfloppingbush.com/
Bush opposed the McCain-Feingold bill in the 2000 GOP primary, tried to kill it in Congress, and then signed it when it passed.
http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry022102.shtml
Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.
Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.
Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.
Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.
Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.
Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.
Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.
Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/25/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/
Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.
http://www.hillnews.com/news/032603/funds.aspx
Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits.}
http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/veterans/health.html
Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.
Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.
Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.
Bush claims to be for women's rights and then nominates judges who have tried to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will.
Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have.
Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote
Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team.
Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.
Bush says he's in favor of adding carbon dioxide as a regulated greenhouse gas. Then Bush said it would not be included.
Bush was against Nation Building. ooops Iraq.
Bush-"I'm a uniter, not a divider." Then divides.
Bush was against amnesty for illegal aliens. Now he's for it.
Bush was against Presidents doing an end run around Congress to pack the courts. Then he did it.
Bush said the war would cost $3 billion. Then he asked for 87 billion.
Bush We need to go to war with Iraq because their WMDs pose a direct threat to the
United States. Bush- We needed to go to war with Iraq to free the Iraqi people.
Bush implemented No Child Left Behind, then underfunded it by $9 Billion"?
As governor of Texas, Bush opposed a strong patients' bill of rights that nevertheless passed over his veto. On the 2000 campaign trail, he tried to take credit for the law and implied he would support comparable legislation on the national level.
Bush proposed a temporary tax cut conditioned on the idea that the government could afford it without spending the Social Security surplus; then, when the surplus vanished, he supported a further tax cut. Now he wants his first cut made permanent.
Bush Flip Flop compliments of Josh Marshall (Part one)
Bush Flip Flop compliments of Josh Marshall (Part two)
Posted by john o at September 19, 2004 01:27 PMBush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote
"Everybody should show their cards, no matter what the whip count." One of my favorites. No one got to show their cards, pardner, so you could continue with the fiction that France would veto a resolution when in fact they didn't need to - the votes were never there. flippppity - flopppity - FLEEEEEE!
Posted by flatulus benjoya at September 19, 2004 02:35 PMCURRENT ELECTORAL VOTE COUNT:
BUSH: 331
KERRY: 207 (and getting weaker)
America won't elect a liberal anti-war candidate.
48 days left and I still don't know Kerry's position on Irag. It changes every day.
bush for 4 more years.
steady leadership in timesof change.
Posted by at September 19, 2004 03:06 PMcurrent electoral count:
BUSH: 331
Kerry: 207 and getting weaker.
Kerry has no credibility on the Iraq issue. He is too liberal. "I'm not Bush" just isn't enough.
4 more years of BUSH
Then... JEB BUSH in 2008.
12 mores years of BUSH
Posted by at September 19, 2004 03:10 PMSteve,
It looks like our trolls are living in the same fantasy world that their hero lives in!
John Kerry was in Vietnam. Whatever you have to say about his service there, he served. If he had come back with no medals, he'd still have seen more action than George Bush.
Given the choice, I'd prefer a war president who has actually been in a war, thank you. Who has seen men die, and not just called the grieving families of soldiers sent to die on false pretenses.
I like the quote sheet Kerry. Everything in there is accurate, insofar as he was informed or misinformed by the same bad sources at times as the rest of the senate. Unlike, say, Dick Cheney, who had independently verified that the Niger uranium yellow cake documents were false and there was no legitimite reason to believe Iraq had a real shot at developing nuclear capabilities, Kerry did not have access to the resources of the white house and the extended US intelligence community to disprove the questionable intel on Iraqi capabilities. It wasn't Kerry who employed Chalabi for intelligence, knowing he was a crook.
I find it hilarious that republicans want to trash Kerry's character when their candidates are so much less worthy. Either the past matters, or it doesn't. If it does, Bush is a drunk driving, possibly coke snorting and wife abusing, failed businessman. This image is pretty much consistent with the performance of his administration in the past 4 years.
Badmouthing Kerry's past isn't going to make W's go away. And saying Kerry is weak on Iraq doesn't mean anything, he hasn't been president while this administration waded us up to our necks in shit there. You think he could have done worse there? Unlikely.
Posted by enough at September 19, 2004 04:18 PMDon't put too much stock in the EV count based on the current poll figures. The electoral vote counts that figure in numbers from pollsters who use bad demographic information (using 40% republicans, for example) without adjusting to reflect affiliation figures at least somewhat similar to past elections are pretty doubtful.
There seems to be a lot of that going around. Does anyone know where the numbers are for Strategic Vision? I've written them to ask for them but haven't heard back. And electoral-vote, among others, uses them.
Posted by enough at September 19, 2004 04:27 PM09/16 09/15 09/17 09/14 09/16 TBA 09/17 TBA MI WI IA OH MN FL PA WA
Bush-Cheney 41% 49% 48% 52% 45% 0% 49% 0%
Kerry-Edwards 48% 44% 47% 42% 49% 0% 45% 0%
Undecided 11% 7% 5% 6% 6% 0% 6% 0%
Just look to where the Kerry campaign has put its resources. It's pulling money out of Bush states and into Gore states.
That's how you know the Kerry campaign is behing at least 6%.
Just face it, your candidate is too weak on almost every issue.
Keep living in your fantasy world where all the polls are swewed against Kerry. RIDICULOUS!!!!
Posted by at September 19, 2004 05:02 PMhaha
the trolls think that OH is a Gore state!
Oh, and let's see, Jr. is campaigning in NC!!! Yeah Kerry's on the run alright
/sarcasm
Posted by ga6thdem at September 19, 2004 06:22 PMWE GOT A BALL GAME FOLKS
NEW ZOGBY
Bush Continues To Hold Slim Lead Over Kerry (46%-43%); President Widens the Gap In the War on Terrorism (75%-19%)- While Kerry Leads On Other Top Issues, New Zogby America Poll Reveals
With just 44 days to go before voters cast their ballots, President George W. Bush continues to hold a slim lead over Senator John Kerry (46%-43%), according to a new Zogby America poll. The telephone poll of 1066 likely voters was conducted from Friday through Sunday (September 17-19, 2004). Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/-3.1%.
Presidential Candidates %
Sept 17-Sept19
Sept8-Sept9
Aug30-Sept2
Republican - George W. Bush
46
46
46
Democrat - John Kerry
43
42
44
Independent - Ralph Nader
1.4
2.4
3
Libertarian - Michael Badnarik
1.2
.9
.3
Constitution - Michael Peroutka
.1
.3
-
Green - David Cobb
-
-
-
Other
.9
.6
.6
Undecided
7
8
7
btw steve
your last lines are exactly what kerry needs to say
you should send them to Kerry Campaign
mc cain says bush isn't being honest. guess the combat veterans line up on one side, chickenhawks on the other.
Posted by flatulus benjoya at September 19, 2004 08:30 PMfout more years!
Posted by kim jong il at September 19, 2004 08:31 PMfour more years!
Posted by kim jong il at September 19, 2004 08:31 PMgo bush!
Posted by ayatollah khamenei at September 19, 2004 08:33 PMremember me? thought not.
Posted by osama at September 19, 2004 08:36 PM