PDA

View Full Version : Kerry would not overthrow Saddam



eg8r
09-21-2004, 06:46 AM
I think Kerry is doing his best to confuse the people who support him. First Kerry votes in favor of the war with Iraq. He then votes against funding the war. He then states that we should never have gone to war with Iraq, and we went for the wrong reasons. Then a couple months ago, Kerry states (paraphrased), given the information we (the US) know now, I (Kerry) would still go into Iraq (meaning he would have still authorized the war). Now, just yesterday, Kerry threw another curve ball. Here is the link (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040920/D857LANG1.html) ... <blockquote><font class="small">Quote ap article:</font><hr> Staking out new ground on Iraq, Sen. John Kerry said Monday he would not have overthrown Saddam Hussein had he been in the White House...<hr /></blockquote> So, what is he saying...We should not have gone to war with Iraq? Or, we should still have gone to Iraq but left Saddam in power? Maybe someone can find a link to his exact words, just maybe the AP's paraphrasing was out of context. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Less than two years after voting to give Bush authority to invade Iraq, the Democratic candidate said the president had misused that power by rushing to war without the backing of allies, a post-war plan or proper equipment for U.S. troops. "None of which I would have done," Kerry said. <hr /></blockquote> I really don't understand what Kerry is talking about. There was no misuse of power going to war. We had the backing of plenty of allies. I can give Kerry some benefit of the doubt on the postwar plan, things definitely are not going as well as Bush had hoped.

The last part is the best (Kerry would properly arm the soldiers), Kerry actually voted against funding for "proper" equipment, right after he voted to send them off to war. This is a great example of why Kerry's Senate voting record is not a priority of his campaign. The man is trying so hard right now to be someone in which his voting record disagrees. What Kerry says and what he has done are two very different things.

[ QUOTE ]
"Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell," he added( <font color="blue"> Kerry speaking </font color> ). "But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."

Bush hit back from a campaign rally in New Hampshire, interpreting Kerry's comment to mean the Democrat believes U.S. security would be better with Saddam still in power. "He's saying he prefers the stability of a dictatorship to the hope and security of democracy," the Republican incumbent said. <hr /></blockquote> Bush is correct in his translation of Kerry's quote.

[ QUOTE ]
"Today, my opponent continued his pattern of twisting in the wind," Bush said. "He apparently woke up this morning and has now decided, No, we should not have invaded Iraq, after just last month saying he would have voted for force even knowing everything we know today." <hr /></blockquote> Kerry flip flopping again.

eg8r

highsea
09-21-2004, 06:56 AM
Actually Ed, it's pretty simple.

On Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, Kerry's for the war.

On Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, he's against it.

Every other Sunday, he goes to a black Catholic church. The other two days a month he is either snowboarding in Idaho or sailing in Nantucket.

On leap years, he's a war hero.

-CM

Qtec
09-21-2004, 09:14 AM
Quote eg8r,
"The last part is the best <font color="blue"> HaHa. </font color> (Kerry would properly arm the soldiers), Kerry actually voted against funding for "proper" equipment, right after he voted to send them off to war. This is a great example of why Kerry's Senate voting record is not a priority of his campaign. The man is trying so hard right now to be someone in which his voting record disagrees. What Kerry says and what he has done are two very different things."


I dont know why I bother but here you go, the truth.


On March 18 the Bush campaign released a new version of the ad and said they would run it nationally on network cable television, as well as in West Virginia.

The updated version of the ad was nearly identical in wording but added near the end footage of Kerry giving an awkward but widely quoted explanation of his position:

Announcer: And what does Kerry say now?

Kerry: I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it

Kerry was referring to a measure he co-sponsored that would have provided the $87 billion while also temporarily reversing Bush's tax cuts for those making $400,000 a year or more. That measure was rejected 57-42.

The Bush campaign named the revised ad "Troops-Fog" and issued a news release saying Kerry's stance is part of a pattern of equivocation. Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan called the ad misleading and said: "John Kerry opposed a red inked, blank check on Bush’s failed Iraq policy."
"For the record, the body-armor money amounted to just over 1/3 of 1 percent of the $87 billion supplemental bill that Kerry opposed."


In other words, the tax cuts for the rich were more important than body armour for the troops as far as the Reps were concerned! They were prepared to lose the vote to protect rich guys tax cuts. All they had to do was to comprimise on this one point and Kerry would have voted Yea, but they didnt.
Sort of turns your story on its head, dont you think?

Q
try www.factcheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org)

eg8r
09-21-2004, 09:29 AM
My post was not about some "ad" that you are talking about, it is about the actual vote for/against the bill that would supply the body armour amidst other things noted on the bill. Kerry voted "No".

With this vote, one cannot honestly believe he would do his best to properly arm the soldiers.

eg8r

crawdaddio
09-21-2004, 09:59 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> My post was not about some "ad" that you are talking about, it is about the actual vote for/against the bill that would supply the body armour amidst other things noted on the bill. Kerry voted "No".

With this vote, one cannot honestly believe he would do his best to properly arm the soldiers.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

I disagree with your last sentence here. As Q quoted, 1/3 of one percent of the 87 billion would have gone to properly arming our troops. Kerry proposed that to cover the 87 billion, we get rid of tax cuts for those making over $312,000.00 a year. This proposal was defeated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26677-2003Sep17?language=printer

[ QUOTE ]
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, introduced legislation yesterday to finance the $87 billion package by reducing the size of Bush's tax cut for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. The proposal, cosponsored by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), a presidential aspirant, would increase the top tax rates from 2005 through 2010 for those with taxable incomes of more than $312,000 a year.
.......... Administration officials made it clear they are girding for a congressional fight, not just with Democrats but also with Republicans. Some GOP conservatives have proposed separating the funding for Iraq's reconstruction and declaring it a loan to be repaid eventually. The White House was having none of that. One official said the reconstruction funds were "inextricably entwined with the military request" and explicitly deemed a grant to Iraq.

Officials said they would insist on funding flexibility that congressional members of the appropriations committees have long resisted. The White House wants $1.9 billion for its flexible Iraqi Freedom Fund, which the Pentagon could spend as it chooses. Bush is also seeking authority to shift $5 billion of the request wherever the military chooses. <hr /></blockquote>

So, just because he voted "nay" on this bill, does not necessarily mean that either: A)He does not support our TROOPS, or B)He would not vote to supply them with the materials and pay they need and deserve.

Don't get me wrong, Kerry is an idiot. But to say this ONE vote PROVES he does not support our troops is flawed.

DC

#### leonard
09-21-2004, 11:18 AM
There is only one way to stop the War that is to send only registered Republicans to fight. ####

Ross
09-21-2004, 11:19 AM
You are so correct Crawdaddio. When a senator votes against a very large omnibus bill it doesn't mean the senator is against each and every provision in the bill. Just like when the President vetoes a bill that does not mean he is against everything in the bill. Almost anyone who thinks about this for a minute realizes this. So to interpret these votes in that simpleminded way is, well, simple-minded. Or since the people making this argument are obviously bright, I guess you have to chalk it up such strong bias that they quit using their reasoning abilities. Another possibility is they don't care if the charge is fair or accurate, as long as it supports their cause. Who knows?

For example, Republicans voted overwhelmingly against a Dodd (D-Conn) admendment in 2003 that would have provided more than $300 million for body armor for our troops. Does that mean that Republicans don't care about our troops? Of course not. To claim it does is dishonest and stupid. Republicans voted against it because they did not like part of the admendment that talked about where the funds were going to come from so they voted against the whole thing.

Just like Kerry voted against the $87 billion bill because of objections to the Republicans refusal to take the pay-as-you-go route (remember the concept of fiscal responsibility?) and as a protest vote against what he perceived as Bush botching the war. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH NOT WANTING OUR SOLDIERS TO HAVE ARMOR OR TO BE PAID.

But Republican attack ads take the deception a step further. They show Kerry voting "No" repeatedly after a voice over names individual items in the 87 billion bill. Of course that never happened, and the ad deliberately deceives the public into thinking that Kerry voted against those individual items.

The blatant dishonesty of the ad is even worse than even that though. One of the items that the ad shows Kerry saying "No" to is higher combat pay for our troops. But as has been discussed on this board, it was the Republicans that voted to let the hazardous duty pay increases expire. The Dems have consistently fought for higher pay for our soldiers. They Dems also voted for tax breaks involving housing for soldiers which the Republicans shot down. They have also fought for better care for Vets which the Republicans have consistenty cut funding for. So in reality which party is the friend of our troops?

But bandwagon Kerry bashers are willing to believe outlandish things - like Kerry doesn't care about our troops safety. I personally don't know a single American that feels that way. How can people be so biased as to believe such outlandish ideas? Apparently people have quit thinking for themselves because blatantly misleading attack ads like this work. Sad -- but true.

eg8r
09-21-2004, 12:28 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The blatant dishonesty of the ad is even worse than even that though. One of the items that the ad shows Kerry saying "No" to is higher combat pay for our troops. But as has been discussed on this board, it was the Republicans that voted to let the hazardous duty pay increases expire. The Dems have consistently fought for higher pay for our soldiers. <hr /></blockquote> These are two different things. Voting to raise pay, and allowing a certain pay to expire are very different. This is the kind of manipulation of the truth that you are blaming on the Reps. It is not the first time you have done so, yet you perch yourself up so high.

eg8r

eg8r
09-21-2004, 12:32 PM
[ QUOTE ]
But to say this ONE vote PROVES he does not support our troops is flawed.
<hr /></blockquote> Since it was during a time of war it should carry a bit more weight. What it says about Kerry is that he is less worried with the soldiers safety as he is worried about whether the hard working rich can keep their own hard earned money.

eg8r

crawdaddio
09-21-2004, 12:55 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>
[ QUOTE ]
But to say this ONE vote PROVES he does not support our troops is flawed. <hr /></blockquote>
<hr /></blockquote> Since it was during a time of war it should carry a bit more weight.<font color="blue">I disagree. </font color> What it says about Kerry is that he is less worried with the soldiers safety as he is worried about whether the hard working rich can keep their own hard earned money. <font color="blue">No, what it says is that the issue is more complicated than an if (he votes no) then (he doesn't value or support our troops) situation. I think (pure speculation) that he , and many others (including some republicans) were against, in a sense, writing a blank check. They wanted a little more fiscal responsibility. Where will this 87 BILLION$ come from, how will it effect our economy, our DEFICIT, etc..........All of this is moot anyway.
Thanks,
DC </font color>

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
09-21-2004, 01:53 PM
You are right, pure speculation. We can all guess why Kerry chose to vote the way he did, but the fact of the matter, is that with his vote he left American soldiers without the body armour they need.

eg8r

Ross
09-21-2004, 02:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
The blatant dishonesty of the ad is even worse than even that though. One of the items that the ad shows Kerry saying "No" to is higher combat pay for our troops. But as has been discussed on this board, it was the Republicans that voted to let the hazardous duty pay increases expire. The Dems have consistently fought for higher pay for our soldiers. <hr /></blockquote> These are two different things. Voting to raise pay, and allowing a certain pay to expire are very different.

<font color="blue">
Eg8r, you are correct that the hazardous duty pay was different than the pay raise.

But you didn't address the heart of my post:

1. Do you think that it is "fair and balanced" to portray that a senator is against everything in a bill if he votes against it?
2. If so, then do you think the Repubs were against body armor for our troops when they voted against Dodd's admendment?
3. Do you honestly think the real difference in Kerry and Bush is that one of them wants to protect our soldiers and the other doesn't?

Criticize Kerry for real issues - like you did about him not being clear about his Iraq policy. But don't stoop to this Limbaughesque character assasination and name calling. </font color>

This is the kind of manipulation of the truth that you are blaming on the Reps. It is not the first time you have done so, yet you perch yourself up so high.
eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue">Cheap shot, but I'm used to those from you. And it is not the same type of manipulation. I don't have the time to list out all of the soldier-related votes over the past years and I didn't take the time to differentiate the two types of pay in this post- but the point that the Dems have voted for supporting the troops as much as the Republicans is not a lie, nor is it character assasination. Saying or implying that Kerry is against body armor or health care for our troops is a lie. That's a big difference.

For everyone else who disagrees with me, I apologize if I came off arrogant in my post. But I honestly don't understand how people cannot (or don't bother to make the effort to) see through the BS in misleading and manipulative ads like this one. </font color>

Ross
09-21-2004, 02:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> You are right, pure speculation. We can all guess why Kerry chose to vote the way he did, but the fact of the matter, is that with his vote he left American soldiers without the body armour they need.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

That is completely incorrect. The bill passed and Kerry knew it would pass. His vote was a protest vote, and he said so clearly at the time.

eg8r
09-21-2004, 06:18 PM
LOL, you can argue all you want, but he voted against a bill that would send body armour to soldiers who were out there fighting. Why, because he wanted to steal more money from the rich. When he did not get what he wanted, he pouted and refused to vote "yes" for the bill which included body armour for soldiers currently fighting.

eg8r

eg8r
09-21-2004, 06:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
1. Do you think that it is "fair and balanced" to portray that a senator is against everything in a bill if he votes against it? <font color="red"> I think it is fair and balanced to say it was not as high on his list as the other items. </font color>
2. If so, then do you think the Repubs were against body armor for our troops when they voted against Dodd's admendment? <font color="red"> Same as above. </font color>
3. Do you honestly think the real difference in Kerry and Bush is that one of them wants to protect our soldiers and the other doesn't? <font color="red"> I honestly do not think Kerry thinks too highly of the soldiers. Sorry, but his history proves he is able to stab them in the back when they are at their weakest point, fighting. </font color>

Criticize Kerry for real issues - like you did about him not being clear about his Iraq policy. But don't stoop to this Limbaughesque character assasination and name calling. <font color="red"> I don't remember calling him a name, unless you are referring to flip flopper. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif If the shoe fits... As far as character assasination, that is bull, his record is there for all to see. Go through his Senate history and tell us what he has done that would make him worthy to be President. When you do find one or two things (I am giving him the benefit of the doubt), remind us why he is not using those highlights of his Senate career as part of his campaign. Why is he so worried about Vietnam, when it was no big deal when Clinton was dodging the draft and Kerry was offering him full support. </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>eg8r

Qtec
09-21-2004, 09:39 PM
I thought you were spot-on about the M,s. LOL

Q

Fair_Play
09-21-2004, 11:02 PM
Kerry "I voted for it before I voted against it" - may very well have had true conviction and a reasonable reason to vote as he did. What I object to is the prospect of national tv footage of him, for the next four to eight years, wearing spandex and wiggling his aged posterior ("I NEVER fall down!!") while wind surfing . ??? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Ross
09-22-2004, 11:41 AM
Ok, now THAT'S a criticism I can understand! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif