Classic Kerry

[IowaSkinsFan]

Pick a side John!

In a November 9, 1997 debate with Rep. Peter King (R-NY) on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) defined the reasons for significant, preemptive and potentially unilateral military action against Saddam Hussein. In the speech, Kerry named Hussein's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) as a major cause of threats to peace, security, and stability. Kerry contended that Hussein could not be allowed to continue to defy the U.N.'s will and their inspection process.

Now, in the post-9/11 world, Kerry argues the opposite of his 1997 presentation. He states that he opposed action against the threat presented by Hussein, although he voted for the president to have the authority to do so.

Source (http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/october/1001_kerry_wmd.shtml)

[Keino]

Im amazed that anyone can consider this flip flopping. In 97 Hussein kicked out the UN inspectors...in 2002 he let them back in. 1997 was prior to 9/11 and prior to us being otherwise occupied with fighting terrorists in Afghanistan......

[Skinzaholic]

This is just one of many times Kerry has changed his stance according to the wind of politics. Just as we cant ignore Bush's mistakes - we can't ignore Kerry's either.

[Jimreaper007]

Bush is held accountable because this is his watch. He is the CIC and not Kerry.

Furthermore, had GW Bush Jr. listened and learned from his father, we would not be in this meat/money grinder today

The words of Bush Sr.

Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998): While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

Had Bush Jr. bothered to ask dear old dad, the first mistake of deciding to invade Iraq might not have happened.

[akhhorus]

This is just one of many times Kerry has changed his stance according to the wind of politics. Just as we cant ignore Bush's mistakes - we can't ignore Kerry's either.

but as Kerry put it: which is worse?

[Jimreaper007]

Funny how Bush/Cheney nuked Kerry for not voting for the 87 Billion.

People are so short sighted that they missed the fact that Bush sent our troops into Iraq without body armor in the first place.

Again, Which is worse?

The orginal decision to send our troops in without the equipment they need? (Bush)

or

Realizing that this whole situation is screwed up and not giving your vote/consent again? (Kerry)