|
No, I am not trolling - I've been going back & forth with a friend via email and here are some of his responses to my responses on Kerry being a flip-flopper. (Thanks to the folks yesterday who gave me some good ammo!)
1) his initial claim: *He said he was against the war in Iraq and voted for it.
My response: He voted for the Iraq War Resolution which stated that Bush had to go back to the UN Security Council for a second vote, which he did not do.
His latest: Kerry is apparently choosy about when a lack of UN votes will raise his hackles!: "Kerry, in 1997, actually supported unilateral military operations to unseat Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Appearing on CNN's "Crossfire", on Nov. 12, 1997, the great internationalist even declared that the same UN approval he now preaches for on campaign stops wouldn't be necessary for then-President Bill Clinton to launch an offensive against Saddam's regime. "The administration is making it clear they don't even need the UN security council to sign off on a material breach...so furthermore, I think the United States has always reserved the right and will reserve the right to act in its best interests."
2)Him: *He said he was against the war in Iraq and wanted to protect our troops, but voted against the additional funding.
Response: Already explained in my previous email. (my response was about the protest vote after it was clear it was going to pass)
His Latest: That's great that Kerry made his moral stand even though it meant our troops would continue soldiering on, ill-equipped! That must make him popular with the armed forces members, and families of those stationed in Iraq. I wonder if this contributed to the delay in getting armored HUMVEES to our troops? (That top 1% (>= $293k annually) earned 17.5% of the nation's income in 2001, yet paid nearly 40% of taxes!)
*3) his claim: He says now he's against no child left behind, yet he voted for it.
My response: Voted for the original act, but the fact that Bush has drastically under funded it, the NCLB act is actually having a dramatically deleterious effect on public schools and he thinks it is now unworkable because of this.
His latest: Our public schools have been floundering for decades. Despite Clinton authorizing all sorts of money for public schools, test scores are still weak. I read somewhere that, adjusted for inflation, public schools now spend 3x per student compared to 1960, and scores have stayed the same. If this is true, it indicates that something other than money is the causal factor. NCLB is a scapegoat.
4) too long to post, but I had mentioned Kerry's book:
I assume you mean Kerry's 1997 book, 'The New War?' The one his campaign touted, saying "Long Before Bush Became Governor or President, John Kerry … Warned the Nation About the Dangers Faced By … International Terrorism." (John Kerry For President, "Bush-Cheney Ad Fact Check," Press Release, 7/1/04). If so, I've read the following comments:
"The book does not mention Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda, and The New Republic wrote recently that it ‘was almost entirely focused on the threat of global crime, not terrorism’ and viewed ‘post-cold war security more as a matter for law enforcement than the military.’" (Jodi Wilgoren, "Kerry Pushes Image Of An All-Around, Intelligent Guy," The New York Times, 7/1/04)
Reviewer Noted Kerry’s Book Lacked "Any New Ideas" For Fighting Terrorism. "Kerry will probably receive some criticism for his book’s failure to advance any new ideas for dealing with international crime. Other than his declaration that nations must work more closely together to identify and apprehend criminals and their assets, Kerry seems to be lacking for solutions to the criminal scourge he so skillfully documents." (Phillip Morris, "Top Analysis Of Global Crime Lacks Solutions," The Plain Dealer, 7/20/97)
During 1990s, Kerry Tried To Slash Over $7.5 Billion From Overall Intelligence Budget, Declaring Need To "Rein In" Such Funding
my response on this is that Kerry tried to increase funding for human intelligence. And, the actual votes for 'cuts' to intelligence were actual increases from the deeper cuts proposed by then Sec of Defense Dick Cheney.
5)his claim: *He argues that the President lied to the American public about the war, and yet John Kerry can be found in the congressional record making stronger statements with more definitive accusations against Saddam Hussein.
My response: What statements did he make? Did he say he was going to go back to the UN for a second vote and then re-neg when they realized (through bugging the offices of Sec Council members) that they would lose the vote? Remember, it has already been proven that the intelligence the White House gave to the Senate prior to the Iraq War vote removed the qualifications that the CIA & DoD had put in there - i.e., White House report said that Saddam had planes capable of delivering biological weapons, but did not include the qualification that Naval Intelligence thought it was highly unlikely that was possible. His response: (What?! I remember *prior* to the Iraq invasion that the CIA thought Saddam likely had WMDs, though it felt he wouldn't use them unless we attacked, and that the CIA director caught heat about this . Presumably Congress would have access to better reports than I did (i.e., NY Times and Htfd Courant)) Did he call for a nearly unilateral invasion? (the second largest group of 'soldiers' in Iraq are mercenaries - their contingent is even larger than the UK's contingent)
my response here will be that the CIA had submitted a report to the White House that was filled with many qualifications & doubts. It is well known that the White House cherry picked what they wanted from the various intel reports, and that VP Cheney made unprecedented trips to CIA headquarters to lean on analysts and pressure them into giving him reports with his kind of data...
His latest: Maybe this time Kerry didn't call for a unilateral invasion, but he apparently has not been against the idea when driven by a Democrat: CNN's "Crossfire", on Nov. 12, 1997, the great internationalist even declared that the same UN approval he now preaches for on campaign stops wouldn't be necessary for then-President Bill Clinton to launch an offensive against Saddam's regime. "The administration is making it clear they don't even need the UN security council to sign off on a material breach...so furthermore, I think the United States has always reserved the right and will reserve the right to act in its best interests."
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
