How can Kerry defuse the Iraq Flip Flop statements in debates?

[Quixote1818]

I am a little worried about how Kerry is going to handle his stance on the Iraq war in the debates. Since Kerry has changed his mind several times I am worried Bush will jump all over that. I think this is the only place Kerry needs to be extremely careful and if he crafts it just right he could put Bush on the defensive.

I think however Kerry should just admit that he has changed several times on Iraq but say that the situation in Iraq has changed and that's why he has modified his stance. Then he could say that in Vietnam too many of those in power refused to change for fear of looking like they were weak and it ended up costing us 50,000 lives. Then Kerry could say that he was wrong early on and he was wrong for saying he would still have voted for the war a few months ago. He could then go on to say something like the following:

"Looking at the situation now I would not have voted for the war knowing their were no weapons of mass destruction and knowing that the local people would be so hostile to our presence and so many Americans and innocent civilians would be killed and injured. When I did vote for the War I had counted on you to take ever possible measure to do things the right way but you have failed and it has cost us far too many lives and possibly the War it's self. So yes I have changed my mind several times but only because I am more enlightened now about how the situation would unfold. Thats what reasonable people do when a situation changes. We re-evaluate the situation and look for a new solution. Un-reasonable people never deviate no matter how much things change and thats dangerous! Our kids deserve a humble thoughtful leader not someone who will never admit they are wrong! For God sake an eight year old child is smart enough to change when something is not working. Thats just common sense."

OK, I know this is not perfect but I wrote it in like five minutes.

[qanda]

1. Tell Bush* it was hard to keep a position on Iraq...

When he kept changing the reasons we were going to war with Iraq.

[Quixote1818]

4. AWESOME - Send this to the campaign! Great One Liner!

[qanda]

6. I'm touched...

Thanks

[jab105]

22. Perfect...do you mind if I use that one myself:)

!!

[qanda]

26. I don't mind at all

eom

[Sparkly]

23. That's a beauty!!!

Good one!! Very good one!!

[OneBlueSky]

30. and to accompany that, he can also make the point that . . .

as a Senator, he took the president at his word . . . and that his mistake in the whole Iraq mess was believing Bush . . . "I didn't want to believe that the president was lying to me, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt . . . which is what Senators and Congressmen should do when the president speaks on critical matters of international policy. Unfortunately, I eventually realized that I HAD been lied to, and that was a realization that was very difficult to accept."

[democrat in Tallahassee]

2. the truth will out; bush can't tell the truth

[noahmijo]

3. "Since Kerry has changed his mind several times"

Considering the fact that Kerry has been completely consistent on the issue of Iraq as evidenced by his floor statement on the IWR vote, and in his answer to Chris Matthews on whether or not he would still vote for the authorization, I have to ask are you a troll or are you poorly informed or too lazy to look up the facts and put two and two together?

[Quixote1818]

13. I was watching Chris Matthews and the consensis was that he had

put himself in a difficult position. The Chris Matthews show is not exactly right wing. I think what I am most worried about is the fact that Kerry said he would still be for the war even after he knew they had no weapons of mass distruction. With that he is basicaly just like Bush on Iraq. I guess you are right as he actually has not seemed to flip flop on the main issue. Perhaps I have heard Sean Hannity say he has flip flopped one too many times and just started to believe it. They keep saying he has like seven stances on the war but they never say what they are. Thanks for setting me straight.

[noahmijo]

15. I don't mean to be mean to you if you are legit and all but

If you have the time to come onto DU and post stuff like this you do have the time to get out and look up transcripts, look up statements, look up the IWR, when people refuse to do these things and instead parrot right wing talking points, well you do a massive disservice to the campaign and to our troops.

A very angry kid who came back home from Iraq after being in the shit was infuriated at the majority of the campus Democrats during our meeting when he asked the tough question "So why did Kerry vote for the war?" and NOBODY could answer except for me. Essentially he was testing us to see if we knew our shit, (His position is the same as mine, read the freakin IRW) but as usual most people are quicker to take Sean Hannity's point than actually getting out there and doing our research to get the truth out.

So just remember that the next time you parrot a talking point from the RW like you just did, you're saying that a soldier like this guy is not worth thinking about rather it's easier to be lazy and just claim a defeatist position and let the fucks walk all over you.

This is the ENTIRE Republican way. This is the ONLY way they have ever won elections by Character Assasination.

[Quixote1818]

21. I take back my last message. Here is Kerry's problem I just could not

recall this into my brain from earlier in the day. First of all if the consensus on the regular media such as Chris Matthews is that Kerry has not been consistent on the war their is something to it. While we don't like to say it their is no doubt that Kerry voted against the 87 Billion because Howard Dean was winning and he and Edwards felt like they had to position themselves as anti War at the time. Thats just politics and he had to do it to survive. Somehow Kerry is going to have to figure out a way to smooth this out. My original post was not clear as to what the inconsistency's were but he does have some things that he needs to be ready for. I don't know if you would call that a flip flop on the war but he was trying to appear that he was against the war at that time. If Bush did it we would call it a flip flop.

[noahmijo]

25. See this is the kind of bullshit I'm talking about. Read this

THIS is why Kerry voted against the $87 billion.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/21/sprj.irq.congress.iraq.ap/

Kerry voted against the bill on principal after Bush threatened to veto the $87 billion that made the funds a loan.

Kerry knew full well that Bush could not and cannot be trusted to "fund the troops" so he voted against it because he wanted to demand that Bush come up with a REAL plan and not a handout to Halliburton at taxpayer expense.

[Quixote1818]

32. Thats all Kerry has to say. Just the way you put it! Also..

Why do you think Chris Matthews thinks Kerry did it because of Howard Dean?

[noahmijo]

34. Who knows he's a rabble rouser

I don't care what Chris Matthews thinks I care about what the facts say.

Our main goal is to get the facts out and burn down such ideas and lies that might come in the form of Chris Matthews saying that Kerry did this cause Dean said so crap.

[sonicx]

5. he hasn't changed his mind

he's said from the beginning: he voted for the resolution for the weapons inspections, a UN vote, and war( with broad international support) to be used as a last resort.

bush did none of that and Kerry is going to say all of this in the debate.

If bush says some crap like 'we can't wait for dictators to agree to inspections,' kerry will say 'why not? you never said saddam was an immenent threat.'

[noahmijo]

11. Well he sort of did I think BUT if Bush were to say

Well Saddam WAS an immenent threat! I did say that! Kerry can simply say "Oh yea? prove it. Where are the weapons? where are the stockpiles of nukes which are aimed at the US which you and Cheney were parroting prior to the invasion existed?"

[sonicx]

16. most RWers in the media

make it a point to mention the fact that Bush never said there was an immenent threat. he's said 'gathering threat' and similar language, but not immenent.

I think Kerry can really beat bush bad on this issue. Bush was the one who invaded before the inspections finished, so he can't get away with saying 'the intellegence said saddam had weapons.' All Kerry has to say is 'you should have let the inspections go on to make sure.'

[dennis4868]

19. But then Bushit.....

will smirk and say, "well if you were in charge Sdaam would still be the leader of Iraq gassing his people blah blah blah."

[sonicx]

24. Kerry would say...

"Saddam would have been dealt with by the US and the world community one way or another. Any action we would have taken would have a plan to protect iraq civilians, their homes, and any troops or peacekeepers we used. we have to make sure the the casualty rate is low."

[seabeyond]

7. big difference from threatening going to iraq to what we have

there today. to say yes give authority. to say right after we need to do this and that. to shift a year later and say, they need money they need supplies and gear, to say a year later, a huge mess and getting worse.

kerry isnt in authority. all kerry can do is make a comment at the moment with what he sees, as the situation continually changes so does his answer, as it should, as should bush's answer, and that is the problem with staying the course..............no change in shifts that are happening

[StClone]

8. Kerry changed his mind?

You have some explaining to do and some reading to catch up on.

[sonicx]

9. btw, i hope the 87 billion bill is brought up

so that kerry can finally kill the issue and slap it back at bush (him wanting to veto it).

[WiseMen]

10. WRONG! Kerry has not changed his position on Iraq. He SHOULD HAVE given

what we know today.

[cindyw]

12. The debates are Kerry's only opportunity to say directly to Bush

on this issue, that he trusted him to do it right. That he said that he would not support him if he did it wrong and that Bush did it wrong. He can say, "I wanted to trust you George." If the 87 billion comes up, then Kerry gets the opportunity to say to ask Bush why he sent the troops to Iraq without the body armor.

[AirAmFan]

14. Kerry should say, "I voted for a bill that FUNDED extraordinary expenditures..."

"for a US invasion of Iraq. ... I voted AGAINST an irresponsible later Republican revision of the bill that took out the funding. I voted against protecting a gigantic tax giveaway to the very wealthy. Those lost revenues should have been used to pay for the Iraq invasion.

I believe any President should have the flexibility to conduct foreign policy under the broad oversight of Congress. In that spirit, I voted for the IWR, since Bush promised maximum UN involvement, maximum international consensus, and war as a last resort. It's Bush's burden to explain why he abused that authority to wage a go-it-alone US invasion based on knowingly false 'intelligence' about WMDs. HE must be held accountable for fraudulent use of broad foreign policy powers Congress traditonally gives to every President.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. "My regret is overestimating your ability as a statesman...

...and your willingness to level with Congress and the American people. I voted to give you the authority that any American President should have, believing you would use it consistent with the approach taken by every American President since Dwight T Eisenhower. Force as a final option, taken in concert with our closest allies. I admit to making that misjudgment, but what about yours?"

[liberalpragmatist]

18. Say Bush is the flip-flopper

In response to the flip-flopping charge:

"The congressional resolution which I voted 'yes' on was a threat of force. In order to find out what Saddam Hussein had, we needed to get inspectors in there. Saddam wasn't going to let inspectors into Iraq unless we threatened war. And I made clear at that time that I would only support making good on that threat as a last resort in the event that Saddam Hussein did not comply.

The President claimed to agree. He promised that he would only go to war as a last resort IF Saddam Hussein refused to comply. He broke that promise. He went back on his word. He promised we wouldn't actually go to war unless we had to. He promised that he would plan for the peace. He promised that he would get full international support. He broke his word in every one of those instances. I had trusted him to do the right thing, and he did not. The President owns this war - let him answer why it's a mess. Maybe if he hadn't flip-flopped on going to war as a last resort we wouldn't have been in a situation where over 1000 US troops are dead and $200 billion are being poured into a place that gets more deadly by the day."


About saying he would "still have voted yes" even if he knew there were no WMD's, Kerry's going to have an effective dodge:

"There was no way that we could have possibly known that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction if we didn't get inspectors in, and the only way we were going to get inspectors back in to Iraq was if we made a threat of force against him. Now, we can play the 'what-if' game for days on end if you're that keen, but the American people care about what's actually happening in the real world, not what's happening in a world that doesn't exist. All this is just a distraction from the results of George W. Bush's reckless policies."

[kentuck]

20. BINGO !

Kerry simply has to say that Geoge W Bush is the master "flip-flopper" of all time. For example, at first he did not want a Homeland Security. Then he was for it. At first, he was against the 9/11 investigation and the 9/11 Commission. Then he was for it. Then he said he thought we could win the war on terrorism. Then he said we could not win the war on terrorism. Then he said we could win the war on terrorism.

So you see, Mr Bush can flip-flop with the best of them. So when they mention flip-flop, just remember the master "flip-flopper" of all time...

This could be worth about 5 points in the polls for John Kerry if were to memorize the above. :)

[cidliz2004]

27. It is simple

but maybe not pretty, Kerry voted for the President to having the AUTHORITY to go to war. PERIOD

That is all he voted for. Kerry believes that the President SHOULD have the authority to go to war if needed. When Kerry becomes President, HE may need the "authority" to go to war. It isn't the "authority" that marched us into war, it was Bush's DECISION to go to war. THAT is real issue.

Kerry needs to say very plainly: he believes that the President of the United States SHOULD have the authority to go to war, AND he should also have wisdom and integrity to use the authority with the utmost of care.

It is much like voting to give the police guns when they go to work in a dangerous neighborhood. When you give the policman the gun you are also EXPECTING that the policeman only uses the gun as a last resort when necessary.

If the policeman accidentally shoots an innocent person, it is not the authority of giving the policeman the gun that is in question, it is HOW THE POLICEMAN USED IT. The policeman is responsible for his actions on how he used his weapon.

Bush is clever in fuzzying up the real issues. If Bush gets his argument out there first, then Kerry is constantly backpeddling. Bush talks about Kerry voting for the 87 Million, then voting against it. Bush finds something and distorts it according to his own needs and uses it to define Kerry.

Maybe Kerry should just look at Bush and say


"Mr. President I voted to authorize the President of the United states to have the AUTHORITY to go to war. YOU Mr. President made the decision to GO TO WAR AND TO SEND OUR TROOPS TO IRAQ.

We all trusted in the information that you provided, you then abused the authority that I along with the other Senators gave you and you abused the trust of the American People."


The issue isn't giving the President of the United States the Authority to go to war, The issue is "What did President Bush do with that authority and with the trust of the American People?"

[kentuck]

29. Excellent !

Well said. I hope he takes your advice.

[Guaranteed]

31. That's not going to work.

Bush is out-of-touch, yes, but trying to turn around the flip-flopper charge on him like that won't work. People just aren't going to buy it.

[kentuck]

33. I think you are wrong BullGoose because....

the media would report it as a major story. "Kerry Calls Bush "Flip-flopper" and that would register in a lot of voters minds. And with Kerry's examples, it would defuse that issue to a large extent so that it could not be used against Kerry himself. It would serve a dual purpose. It would make the Bush campaign think twice about using the term because some people may identify Bush as the "flip-flopper" and secondly, it would immunize Kerry against the charge. That's just my opinion.

[Guaranteed]

36. It won't work. At all.

People aren't going to believe it, because Bush is very consistent. YES, I've SEEN the lists and I know Bush's flip-flops, but they're just not going to buy it.

It's NOT the way to go. Very, very weak.

The way to go is in that other thread, in caps "THE WINNING MESSAGE" one. He's out-of-touch. Use his stubbornness and stupidity AGAINST him. He's incompetent, blind to our problems, a fortunate son. That's the way to go.

[Raya]

28. Needs to have Bill Maher's crew write a bunch of Jokes about it.

[greenohio]

35. Kerry needs clarity

We have these discussions over and over again on Kerry's position on the war. Is it possible that we need more clarity here? Some people are so sure they know, but I have to tell you I'm not sure....even after all the reading I've done.

It WAS a surprise to many of us when Kerry said he would STILL vote to authorize shrub to go into the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Reasonable people disagree on Kerry's position.

Some blame Kerry for a lack of clarity. The rest blame everyone else.