The 'flip-flops' that the delegates began to wave at the RNC convention are destined to be the symbol of this fisaco.EVERY day this will be drummed into the public consciousness until there will be no-one left who trusts anything this guy says.
The worst part of that scenario; IT IS ALL TRUE.

I can't believe a man like that is running for president at a time when the monsters are coming out from under the bed.
Zell Miller looks better and better every time this guy says ANYTHING.

The two statements are not contradictory. To give the President the authority to act is not the same thing as condoning his actions after the fact, when it turns out they were based on poor intelligence and lies.

Steve,

Does that mean John Kerry didn't know Bush would use that authority once given? You must believe Kerry is some kind of a fool I guess.

No, he's not that dumb. He's a flip flopper. An opportunist.

....when it turns out they were based on poor intelligence and lies.

How can the President's actions be based on both poor intelligence and lies? If he had poor intelligence, he wasn't lying. If he was lying, that would mean he was fully aware that there were no WMDs in Iraq, thus making the intelligence he had good.

>>>"How can the President's actions be based on both poor intelligence AND lies?"

Sean,

It can't. It's whatever suits them at the moment. Steve slipped up when he used both at the same time. And they say Bush is a genius AND a dunce too; whatever suits them at the moment.

As the debates approach, watch the Dems lower expectations for Kerry's performance by reminding us what a "brilliant" debater Bush is. And he's a dunce too.

Steve: To give the President the authority to act is not the same thing as condoning his actions after the fact, when it turns out they were based on poor intelligence and lies.

Kerry said he would vote to authorize the invasion even knowing what he knows today. Not that it means anything, obviously, but he did say it.

Of course Kerry contradicts himself, Steve. Do you have any trouble determining whether or not I think overthrowing Saddam was the right call? No would who reads my blog could ever say my position is unclear. It's totally unambiguous.

Kerry voted to give Bush authorization, and in his speech doing so he said that Bush should have exhausted all venues diplomatically. Bush used faulty intelligence in concert with falsified data to push the nation and congress to authorize the invasion (everyone forgets that the majority of people only favored going to war with Iraq under the banner of international cooperation, but obviously gave our troops 100% support on the war's commencement). It's plainly obvious now that Bush did not plan for the postwar, is continuing to screw up the postwar (hey look, the Baathists are back), and the war itself only went as well as it did thanks to the ineptitude of Saddam Hussein (proving the argument of the anti-war faction, including myself, who argued that while Hussein was a bad guy worth taking out -- he wasn't worth endangering the ongoing war vs. Al Qaeda). So, no, saying that this was the wrong war is not mutually exclusive of authorizing a show of force versus Hussein.

My favorite Kerry Kontradiction is that he sneers at our current allies (he just did it again this week), and at the same time he says he will be better at international diplomacy than Bush, who has "alienated our allies" by "going it alone." Given that between Afganistan and Iraq there are about 60 countries involved (due to Bush's horrible diplomacy), who is Kerry going to replace them with? And why? And why can't he tell he's contradicting himself?

At least Tommy Franks talked him out of bringing the troops home in 6 mos.
http://www.in-forum.com/audio/general_franks.asx

Spin on Oliver...

Oliver,

Saddam was planning on just a show of force from us. That's why his forces were mostly deployed & equipped for internal repression when we touched things off. Amongst other things, that's part of why we got to Baghdad so fast. And us getting there so quick is what buggered up our post war plans. We were expecting to take 125 days to reach Baghdad, nearly 18 weeks. Instead it took, what? Three weeks or so? We did unexpectedly well, and it threw our timetables way out of whack.

Good to see Oliver taking another run at the "fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq is a distraction from the war on Al Qaeda" argument. Rocket scientists abound...

Speaking of Rocket Science: Michael, you are making the assumption that Kerry's smart enough to be consciously attempting to be the Rorschach Candidate. (Teaser: that would be the "liar" option in my link below.)

But there are at least two other options that are nicely illustrated by the complete lack of understanding everyone has shown about the Christmas in Cambodia absurdity: he could be incompetent on a stunning scale or nuttier than a pecan plantation.

People haven't come around to examining the fact that based on Kerry's subsequent history when he returned from Nam, he's screwed (well, to moderately rational folk anyway) whether he WAS or WASN'T in Cambodia!

And by the way, have you noticed that the Dems talking points on whether he was or wasn't there are as fluid as anything else about him -- even after the campaign seemingly admitted that he wasn't there?

http://wethefree.blogspot.com/2004/08/cambodian-case-closed-conclusively.html

So the Repubs need to stop assuming that they can refute just one of his 2+ arguments about any particular subject -- they need to get busy and refute BOTH OF THEM as my little exercise provides an example of ;)

Bob

Ooh, goodie, it's Oliver with his talking points from David Brock. How much were paid for that comment, Oliver?

The two statements are clearly not contradictions. Actually Kerry has been remarkably consistent over time in regards to explaining his vote.

Daily Howler said it best, although I cannot find the cite right now. Something like:

"Kerry voted to give his Commander In Chief the authority he needed to deal with Saddam, and Bush F*cked it up".

Or something like that.

Basically, you don't kneecap your Commander In Chief - a lesson I assume he learned from 1991, I would suppose.

But Bush then actually went to war, based on horrible (or known) bad information, and therefore committed the nation to the wrong war, at the wrong place at the wrong time.

It's clearly not contradictory, unless you can't handle a two clause sentence.

JC,

Kerry said he would have authorized the war even if he had known there would be no WMD. So the following sentence of yours does not hold up:

But Bush then actually went to war, based on horrible (or known) bad information, and therefore committed the nation to the wrong war, at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Mason: How much were paid for that comment, Oliver?

This kind of cheap shot is constructive how, exactly?

Michael, it's an entirely unconstructive comment, and I apologize for making it here in your corner of the web.

Again, I believe you are incorrect here, and this is why.

If President Bush did not have the authority from Congress to go to war, then he could not have dealt with Saddam, coming from a strong hand. It is a responsibility of Congress, I think, to give a strong hand in dealing with threats to the Commander in Chief.

As an example, I can't see how getting the UN inspectors that we got into Iraq, would have happened, without the authorization.

But again, once the inspectors are there, and there's a very tough inspection regime, then Bush needed to do the right thing.

And in this case, despite the lack of evidence, he invaded anyway.

What is logically missing there?

Verb/subject error. Should have said:

It is a responsibility of Congress, I think, to give the Commander in Chief a strong hand in dealing with threats to the country.

Persuant to my comment about Kerry's diplomatic skills: then there's Teresa, who appears to be under wraps for the duration. What a diplomatic asset she's going to be. . . . She'll charm the French, and irritate the hell out of everyone else.

JC,

You are nuancing all this to death. Kerry can't talk straight about this, and you can't admit it. The fact that his statements require such tortuous and unconvincing defenses is evidence enough right there.

His weird commentary makes absolutely no sense when added together. I still can't figure out what his position is, and I assure you it is not because I can't read. It's obvious what my position is. It's obvious what Bush's position is. It's obvious what Joe Lieberman's position is. It's obvious what Christopher Hitchens' position is. It's obvious what Howard Dean's position is. It's obvious what your position is.

If Kerry can't explain whether he is for or against a war in one paragraph and stick to it then he either has a serious mental defect or he is deliberately obfuscating.

If he wants to be for the war but against the execution, fine. Then he should just say that. But he doesn't.

If he regrets his decision to authorize force, fine. He should just say that. But he doesn't.

If he wants to tack back and forth being both for and against the war, that is not fine.

If he voted to authorize the use of force but didn't want Bush to use force then he does not take foreign policy seriously.

Actually Michael, I can understand the bad choices you have. From what I understand, on one hand, you believe that realism is, because of the increasing interdependency of the world, and the increasing technological threats, not a viable option.

In this, it seems that Bush agrees with you.

On the other hand, it appears that for most of the Kerry postions domestically, you agree with. But Kerry also seems more in a realism camp, which you consider the most essential issue.

What is a puzzle to me is, given the "new" risky pre-emption strategy, that you feel must be used, is why you yourself don't feel completely betrayed at the rank incompetence with which the Bush administration has handled the Iraq situation. This incompetence has done more to invalidate what you view as the fundamental strategy shift, than anything done by Kerry, or realists, or whomever.

If I've misinterpreted you, my apologies...

I'm really struggling to see how an intelligent person, who understands the effect of the resolution that Kerry voted for, can see a contradiction between the two statements.

Or, to put it another way, even an idiot can see a position that makes both statements entirely consistent, as Bob Somersby so memorably showed in the post that JC refers to above.

JC,

If by "realism" you mean the foreign policy school of Henry Kissinger, then yes you're basically right.

But I don't oppose "realism" simply because of the increasing interdependency of the world or the availability of technological threats. I oppose "realism" first and foremost because it is both immoral and counterproductive. "Realism" is to blame for the military regime of Augusto Pinochet, the creation of Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority, and the American collaboration with Saddam Hussein and the House of Saud.

Bush talks about democracy. Kerry talks about stability. It gives me the creeps. Stability junkies are not liberal.

JC, getting the UN inspectors back to Iraq was due primarily to the unanimous Rez 1441. Kerry's vote for the use of war, and his subsequent reaffirmation could have signified a principled stance, but the interspread comments against the use of force, (not) surprisingly coinciding with the times he needed the support of the anti-war base, is nothing more than a politically expediant finger in the wind.

The problem, which you seem to chose to ignore, is not that Kerry may have a consistant position, but he's offered so many nuanced (contradictory) versions, that a whole lot of people need Kerry himself, not some campaign underling or sympathetic pundit, to offer a cogent reconcilliation (or partial retraction). Until then no arguement that you, a sympathetic partisan, can offer will convince anyone other than already like minded folks.

Mork: even an idiot can see a position that makes both statements entirely consistent

Please. Kerry refuses to talk straight about this and you can't admit it because you intend to vote for him.

Whatever.

The presidential debate is going to be excruciating. Both Bush and Kerry are absolute wretches when it comes to the use of the English language. In one case I think it's on purpose (but perhaps not), and in the other I think it's because he's dyslexic and not half as smart as his admirers think he is.

John Kerry is not your brother. You know he is a politician who does what politicians do. It is not necessary to defend him on all counts just because you prefer him to the other guy.

I voted for Bill Clinton and absolutely despise Ken Starr and his puritanical fishing expedition. I intend to see the new documentary "The Hunting of the President" and I expect to like it. But none of this prevents me from saying Bill Clinton is a liar, a cheat, and a scoundrel. You couldn't pay me to flack for these guys. They all have way too many obvious flaws, and I just don't see the point in pretending otherwise.

Right on, Michael! I think JC noted your dilemma nicely, you like Dems a LOT more than Christians (both personally and as policy), but you know that a firm response to Islamofascism is needed, and it's the MOST important issue now, and Kerry flip flops (and it’s not Rove).

What I ask is about Bush competence. JC keeps talking about Bush incompetence in the peace. As compared to what? Kosovo (4 years later, UN murders a couple Americans; a little bit of ethnic cleansing accepted)? Rwanda, Sudan, Cambodia? Russia?

The Unreal Perfection standard--0 American deaths, 0 innocents killed, full secular human rights respecting democracy within one US election cycle --is stupid. Of course, the press doesn't admit this is the standard, but in the critiques what IS the standard? JC, what is the “competent” number of American deaths? Of innocents killed? Of the number of months before there’s an election?

because he's dyslexic and not half as smart as his admirers think he is.
**************************************************
Michael the man got an SAT score of 1206 and a
"High Pass" in History and Japanese at Yale?

I took a 1400 in the SAT I was from a small country school and in my best subject , Math I was a year behind the big city schools ie no calculas ended up with 90 percentile in Math, had no foreign language and bombed that part ot the test, now mind you I was a year younger than everyone else taking it. The ACT which I took the year before when I was 2 years younger than most of those taking it, I ended up with a standard score of 30 and 98.9 percentile.

When I was in college I took Russian I thought about Japanese and decided it would be too difficult with the rest of my class load.

I would not down grade anyone who could get a High Pass in that language in any University, much less a major one.

I grew up in Mass. and have watched Kerry for about 20 years. The reason the "flip-flop" stuff sticks today is because of a pattern of political behavior that stretches back to 1971 that everyone can follow. The "I voted for it before I voted against it" and the two quotes Michael cites resonate because they are consistent with John Kerry's historical approach to politics.

Of course yesterday Kerry may have said it best himself:

""Everybody told me, 'God, if you're coming to Canonsburg, you've got to find time to go to Toy's, and he'll take care of you,'" Mr. Kerry said, dropping the name of a restaurant his motorcade had passed on the way in. "I understand it's my kind of place, because you don't have to - you know, when they give you the menu, I'm always struggling: Ah, what do you want? "He just gives you what he's got, right?" Mr. Kerry added, continuing steadily off a gangplank of his own making: "And you don't have to worry, it's whatever he's cooked up that day. And I think that's the way it ought to work, for confused people like me who can't make up our minds.""

www.nytimes.com/2004/09/06/politics/trail/06TRAIL-MALAPROP.html

Kerry refuses to talk straight about this and you can't admit it because you intend to vote for him

Well what's the charge, Michael, that he hasn't been completely clear about his position or he hasn't been consistent?

You have just gone and done a little flip-flopping yourself.

There are plenty of fair and accurate criticisms to be made of Kerry, including that he is frequently less than crystal clear about what he means to say. Sometimes that is because he mangles the language and favors long, run-on sentences with many clauses and sub-clauses. Sometimes it because he expresses the subtelties and contradictions of an issue other politicians either don't see, or realize that they aren't going to get any mileage out of verbalizing. And, yes, sometimes he is less than clear because, being a politician, he doesn't mind a straddle ("compassionate conservativism" anyone?)

But his position on Iraq, at least since the primary season, has been consistent.

Mason: How much were paid for that comment, Oliver?

Totten: This kind of cheap shot is constructive how, exactly?

First, I would characterize it as a pithy fisk, as opposed to a cheap shot. It is constructive in that it states the obvious...that Willis' comment was content-free, without actually attacking Willis personally. And it was all done with far fewer pixels than if Mason had bored us to tears with a point-by-point refutation of Oliver's thoroughly Brockian talking points.

Don't scold Mason, pat the guy on the back...he's just trying to keep up the intellectual standards around here.

And Mason-

Stand your ground. Don't flip-flop!

I'm not exactly clear what Bush's position is. Knowing what he know nows, he would still launch an invasion of Iraq? I need to hear him make the case that resources should have been diverted away from the operations in Afghanistan. Imagine him giving one of those famous speeches without mention of WMD. I find it implausible that Bush isn't lying about his position. Until he (re)makes the case, I will remain unclear about his true position. I don't think he can do it.

MJT,

It is not okay to change your mind every couple of weeks or days or hours over and over again for no apparent reason.

Kerry ALWAYS changes his position for a reason, whether or not it is apparent to the general public. My guess is that the reason Kerry reversed his rhetorical position on the war yet again is that with Bush pulling ahead in polls he was concerned that the extreme left would defect to Nader rather than waste their vote on Kerry.

The socialist left doesn't see much difference between the corporate controlled Democrats and the corporate controlled Republicans. If Kerry is going to lose anyway, isn't their vote used more effectively by sending a message to the Democrats? I bet Kerry's internal polls showed this and prompted his latest pirouette.

My other theory is that Kerry determines his position by plucking petals from a daisy. The one motivator we can certainly rule out is principle.

I just wish Kerry would stop turning every constructive Republican criticism of his foreign policy (or policies I should say) into a personal attack on his character in Vietnam. Even he has to know at this point that's got nothing to do with it.

I fear for Kerry in the debates. They're just now beginning to nail him for voting against the first Gulf War. And for voting against 20 years of modern military hardware. And for the 87 billion for our troops. THEY HAVEN'T EVEN GOTTEN TO BRINGING UP HIS STANCE ON THE DEATH PENALTY, YET!!! The debates are gonna crucify this guy and it's gonna be oh so simple to do. All Bush has to say is, "Why did you vote against the first Gulf War but for the second one?" There's no sane explanation for that one.

Why, oh why, oh why did Democrats nominate this man?! John Edwards would be crushing Bush in the polls, right about now. Hell, even frickin' Howard Dean would probably be ahead of him. At least you knew exactly where he stood. The way Iraq has gone, Dean might have even been the strongest candidate (had he not yeaaggh'd, that is).

They nominated Kerry because Bush-hate was blinding them to a review of the realistic options. Edwards played nice ... nobody else did the work of looking at the Swifties, nor looking at Kerry's record. The Bush-hating press pimping for Kerry tried to minimize the mud/ criticism from Dems against Dems.

Wrong. The Bush-hate blindness is something everybody should be against.

Which Dems had alternative policies of being serious on defense? Lieberman ... no votes. I really wish he had continued, low cost campaign; and gotten Zell to attack Kerry after the WinterSoldier site came out.

Kerry should resign now. For health reasons or anything else. Let it be Edwards ... and anybody.

John Edwards would be crushing Bush in the polls, right about now. Hell, even frickin' Howard Dean would probably be ahead of him.

Grant-

Please. John Edwards and Howard Dean couldn't get it done in the primaries, and there were reasons for that. Think back to December...

You can try to blame the fact that you can't sell Toadstool Pie on the packaging if you want, but it doesn't change the reality that you're trying to sell Toadstool Pie.

If we're going to debate flip-floppery, remember the rules: 9/11 changed evertyhing, so any position or statement pre-9/11 cannot be used as evidence of a flip-flop.

First Gulf War was pre-9/11. Foul!

Good thing we have this rule, otherwise Bush is a much bigger flip-flopper then Kerry. (I was against paying attention to terrorism, now I'm for it. I was against nation-building, now I'm for it. I was for taking drugs, now I'm against it, etc.)

"I'm not exactly clear what Bush's position is. Knowing what he know nows, he would still launch an invasion of Iraq? ... Imagine him giving one of those famous speeches without mention of WMD."

Bushfan,

Bush has said many times that the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do regardless of WMDs. The press has stupified the American public so badly now, that it seems like EVERYONE thinks that the President just came out and said, "Saddam has WMDs, so we need to remove him. If he didn't have WMDs, we'd let him slide for another 12 years, but nope! WMDs are there, so we're going..." If you actually go back and LOOK at those famous WMD speeches, you will see that MOST of the focus was on Saddam's history of using them and his desire to have them. Both of these points are irrefutable. It's true- Bush, as well as MOST Dems AND Repubs, insisted that intelligence showed that he STILL had the internationally-banned weapons. This was an effort by both sides to SOLIDIFY support for what most believed was already a just cause. Flawed intelligence, right? Did you ever wonder why the intelligence was flawed? Did you ever wonder how EVERY SINGLE INTEL AGENCY believed Saddam had them? Maybe because Saddam NEEDED for the whole world, including his own people, to believe he had them? Trust me- as long as the Kurds and the Shi'a remained a threat, he needed them to think another gas strike was possible. He also needed the US (and other potential enemies) to carefully consider the consequences of invading a country that might use WMDs. Intelligence agents intercepted communications, documents, and reliable witnesses that CLEARLY showed that Saddam had them- they also found some info that showed that he might now have them. The flawed intelligence was merely the inability for the world's BEST INTEL AGENCIES to see through Saddam's carefully crafted smoke screen. We STILL don't know whether he had them just prior to the invasion or not. The important thing to consider is this- is it OK to let a brutal dictator with a proven history of using WMDs to play these games in a post-9/11 world? Our answer was obviously, no. Don't fall into the political trap of "no WMDs = no justification for the invasion." It's a political trick used by the Dems- they want to get elected. The issue was never whether or not he had them- the issue is that he used them, he wanted them, he sponsored terrorists, he hated the US, and he had al-Qaeda operatives working in Fallujah (whether by permission or incompetence is irrelevent). Saddam can blame himself for causing the entire world to believe that he was secretly stashing illegal weapons. It was a gamble on his part, and it didn't pay off. Perhaps he didn't realize that we had a guy in the White House who wasn't afraid to eradicate the world of evil- someone who wasn't worried about chasing votes or approval ratings...

"I need to hear him make the case that resources should have been diverted away from the operations in Afghanistan."

OK, but first I need you to show me how resources have been diverted from Afghanistan. Look at Afghansistan before Iraq and now, and tell me how it would be any different. Tell me about how Afghansitan is such a disaster that we need more resources there. Because this would be great information for me to have- I'm now working as a planner for Combined Land Forces Component Command (CFLCC), which overseas resourcing for Iraq and Afghanistan. I've yet to see a request come out of Afghanistan that hasn't been approved for fielding- equipment, personnel, and everything in between. Funny that I keep hearing about Afghanistan "not getting any love" because of Iraq. Even funnier is that I've only heard that come from ONE group of people- democrats. As usual they're politically grandstanding with respect to military operations that they (as well as the people they're lying to) know nothing about.

As far as John Kerry is concerned- it's very simple. He chases votes. He's done it since 1971. Every single mixed-up flip-flopping positioon he's ever taken can be explained by one thing and one thing only- vote chasing. Go check it out! It'll all make sense, I promise you. He stands for one issue- getting elected.

Would Bush have asked for the military authority even knowing that no WMDs would be found?

(if the media has asked Bush this question and gotten an answer, please let me know)

Absolutely- 100%. The issue is that if Saddam had come clean and allowed unchaperoned inspections and full disclosure, then we'd be looking at a different situation. He was unwilling to do this, for the reasons I mentioned above. Some people would think it's OK to let terrorist regimes have their way with the international community. Bush clearly does not. I happen to be with Bush. Our only mistake with respect to Iraq is that we waited way too long to come take him out. Watch the upcoming Fox documentary about the Oil for Food Scandal- this will answer some questions for you...

Removing Saddam was right, the free world could no longer afford wait for Saddam to become an imminent threat.

The Carter dream of catering to dictators, to fascist theocracies and to the United Nations have ended.

It's simple. Kerry knew KNEW that Bush wanted in. And Kerry gave him the authority to go in. End of story.

I'm voting for Kerry, but I won't pretend I'm not troubled. The pro-war side (which I used to be on) has lots of reasons for invading Iraq other than WMDs, but the two quotes MJT cites are just bizarre in relation to each other.

But while Karl Rove didn't create "flip-flopper" out of nothing, the GOP exaggerates it whenever possible.

Take the $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan -- Kerry supported a version that paid the $87 billion partly from taxes now. He opposed the version that was paid entirely from taxes in the future.

Bush has the opposite stance -- he supported $87 billion from future taxes only, and THREATENED TO TO VETO the version with taxes now.

For Bush to use Kerry's vote as evidence of a flip-flop is shameless and misleading.

$lick -- I believe you're right, but has anyone put the question to Bush?

Oberon,

OK, I'll bite.

What question?

Ob,

I would imagine someone has asked him, although I would think it to be a silly question, since he's made his position abundantly clear on many occasions.

About the $87 Billion- I respectfully disagree.

Presidents "threaten" vetos all the time in an effort to shape the bill before it arrives. If Bush HAD stamped a veto on the $87 Billion, regardless of how the funds were being sourced, he would have had a very difficult question to answer- "How can you veto a bill that funds the troops that you sent to war." This question was never asked of him, because he ultimately chose to fund the troops that he sent to war. Kerry, as we all know, did exactly the opposite. When he's confronted with this very difficult question, he claims that it's "more complicated than that." As you mentioned, maybe he didn't like where the funds were coming from. We in the military would say, "Right on, Senator- glad you didn't like where the money was coming from! Please stay out of the White House if you're going to vote to send us to war and then vote against an effort to fund us." There's nothing complicated about supporting our troops while they're in combat...

"The idea that Karl Rove and the Bush Machine invented the flip-flopping canard needs to die."

Man, those Bushies are good. Spend $80 million dollars over 4 months driving home a point, and at the end of the day, even intellegent, independent voices will deny up and down that they had anything to do with it.

Only Aristolean Logic, "Is or Is Not" would think that that "I would still have voted to give the President Power to Declare War" and "The President chose the Wrong War..." are somehow different beliefs or opinioins.

Statement One says that Sen. Kerry believes that the President of The United States should have the power to declare war, without a direct declaration from Congress. I, and our founding fathers, disagree(d) with this theory.

Statement Two says that Mr. Bush, once given that authority chose to use it poorly. He chose to fight the war in a unthoughtful way and has done a bang up job. This I agree with.

While I am scared to think that Mr. Kerry believes that the President should have powers, beyond that which the Law expressly outlines, I am more fearful of a President who actually used powers that are beyond his right to use (even if congress whimped out).

Bush was quoted as saying "We can't win the War on Terror" and "We are winning the war on terror" in a two day span. Instead of 'flip-flop' we're told that we misunderstood, and we have to read the context. When Kerry makes two statements that ARE NOT DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED, he is called a flip-flopper.

I think this is truly sad.

C'mon $lick. Everyone supported funding the troops and reconstructing Iraq and Afghanistan.

The only issue was how to find the funds -- debt, taxes, loans to Iraq -- and yes that can be complicated.

Bush promised to veto the funding if it was partly loans to Iraq or taxes now. Are you're saying his threat was empty? If you promise to veto something and then sign it -- that's a flip-flop.

The socialist left doesn't see much difference between the corporate controlled Democrats and the corporate controlled Republicans.

Neither does the libertarian/conservative right - probably because there ism't much difference outside of foreign affairs...

I will weigh in on the side of finding consistent principle in Kerry's positions on Iraq.

He supported authorization because it was presented, at the time, as a means of giving the president a very strong hand - leverage, if you will, - as he went to the UN to convince the international community to move strongly to bring the Saddam situation to some resolution. Being able to say that a miliatary solution is on the table - and that my Congress has already approved that possibility - indicated not only his seriousness, but the nations as a whole. The unanimous resolution that followed, as well as Saddams agreement to allow the inspectors in would not have happened without it.

Although I never trusted Bush with such power, I can understand a senator, someone who must be mindful of the need for a coherent national policy run by the president, deciding that it is in the national interest to give the president that chip.

It was not a declaration of war. Bush himself denied consistently that any such decision had been made (to actually use the authority to invade). He proclaimed constantly that he hoped and expected that war would not be necessary. Personally, I think those statements were lies. But even if you accept them, and believe that Bush decided on the war sometime after the resolution, you must accept that it was a decision, and that reasonable people can disagree with the decision - even those who granted him the right to make that decision.

Kerry has consistently stated that he felt the president should have that authority to confront Saddam - even if the truth of the WMD situation had been known (lets face it, all of you know quite well there were many other reasons to confront Saddam) - but that he felt, and still feels that what the president did with that authority was grossly incompetent.

Here is just one of many possible scenarios. The inspectors stay in Iraq and complete an exhaustive inspection regime. Everytime Saddam tries to interfere with the inspections, the sabres get rattled a little more. Eventually the truth of the situation emerges - Saddam is a paper tiger with no WMD. We can breathe a little easier, and the Iraqi people begin to sense that this oppressive regime is but a shell. They are emboldened. Meanwhile we continue our intrusive survellence. Any attempt by Saddam to suppress the newly restive natives is done so under the full glare of the international spotlight. We hold the high ground by making it clear that have no interest in invading but wish merely to protect innocent people from a dictator. If military action then becomes necessary, much of the world is with us, for they have become completely invested in the inspector-process and have followed fully the logic of the actions that flow from that. Perhaps military action would not even have been necessary, as the people themselves might have rose up, newly freed of their great fear of being gassed. And we could support that revolution by using our control of the air to prevent any concerted act of suppression.

I'm not saying that this is how it would have played out - just one of many possibilities. I dont think that the only option - certainly not the best option in any sense - was the invasion at that time, in that manner, with no sensible plan for what came after. That is how I have always felt about it, and I sense that Kerry's veiws are similar, and are consistent.

What I dont really understand is when intellegent people, who consistently seem irritated at the bumper-sticker level of discourse about serious issues that pervades political campaings, then turn around and criticize candidates for failing to give us bumper-sticker positions.

You know, Bush did promise to be a 'uniter' and a "compassionate conservative". I have yet to see evidence of him being a uniter or comapssionate. No compassionate laws have been passed recently. Certianly no compassion was shown to AIDS patients and Cancer patients who were using THC as proscribed by their Doctors in accordance with their State Law, passed by the States citizens. No compassion, just raid their home and hold 'em a gunpoint... You never know what those old sick ladies might do when cornered. Tehy're dangeropus Drug Kingpins.

Ohh, what about compassion in the world of Gay Marriage? Instead of starting a national debate, developing options and compromises, he wants to amend the Constitution to deny some rights... first time an amendment would do such a thing. Very compassionate indeed.

Abortion? Not much compassion for others views there either.

So is he a flip-flopper, did he make pre-election statements that he never acted upon,. You bet your Bible Thump he did.

But, instead of focusing on a devisive, unthoughtful, exclusive instead of inclusive President, lets all carp about the fact that Kerry thinks that the President should have the Power to Go To War, but that, in this case, he used such power in a wrong way.

Ok, you can unstop your ears and open your eyes, I'm done and its your turn to tell me how wrong I am.

sophistry

hrmmm:

BLOG Dictionary:

Sophistry - A word used when someone makes an argument you cannot counter. If it doesn't fit with your worldview, it must be Sophistry.

Tosk

Tano, those "bumper sticker" phrases could also be called "core values". (I'm always amazed by otherwise intelligent people who believe having principals is a sign of stupidity.)

Like his position or not, I'm pretty sure I know where Bush stands on the questions of the day. With Kerry, all I'm sure of is he went to Vietnam and he wants to be President. And that's not Karl Rove's fault.

I don't those particular statements of Mr. Kerry's are contradictory, Michael. I think they are, what is the phrase the English use, "too clever by half". Mr. Kerry seems to subject that he voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq under the sole condition that Mr. Bush not use it presumably for tactical reasons. Subsequent statements of his appear to support that interpretation.

This is not contradictory or too nuanced. It's an abrogation of his responsibility as a Senator. But that's another subject.

Tosk, you present a thoughtful argument. Unfortunately for Kerry, it doesn't matter. The real issue here is only partially whether he is or is not a flip-flopper, but how he's perceived. He has tried to please too many different constituencies, and it's lending credence to the charge. He appears to be counting on his supporters to carry his water on these points, when a clear and consistent message from him would do more to eradicate that image than any number of blog posts and comments. In short, he's done a poor job of campaigning to date.

Fortunately for Kerry, he has roughly sixty days and 3-4 debates to counter this perception. If he does, he still has a good shot at winning. If he doesn't, he has nobody to blame but himself.

Dave,
I think you grossly misrepresent Kerry's position. It was, I sense, pretty similar to the one I laid out. It was NOT a vote to authorize war with the intention that that option NEVER be utilized.
I find it absurd to say that simply becuase you give someone the authority to invoke last-recourse options, if necessary, that you then lose the right to criticize the use of those options in situations wherin you deem their use not necessary.

In other words, Tano, you can vote against war after you have voted to authorize war...

Tom: you like Dems a LOT more than Christians (both personally and as policy),

Most people in the country are Christians, including most Democrats. What does Christianity have to do with this, anyway?

Sorry to briefly change the subject. But now that the weekend is over, and the dust settled a bit, I note with interest that the Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll just released today (for polling over the last three days) shows the race an exact tie.
Rasmussen explains why his results are different than Time/Newsweek (4 pt. bounce going down to 2, then 1, now 0 vs. 10) by pointing to an anomolous pro-Kerry day on Saturday. They conclude that the real lead is 4 or 5 points. Saturday's numbers will drop out of tomorrow's report, so Bush might get an uptick. But the only explanation of going from 1.2 yesterday to a tie today, is that yesterday's polling also gave a Kerry-up result.

We back at a tie folks....
Smallest bounce for an incumbent in history. And it lasted less than a week (vs. Kerry's that lasted several weeks).

Phil,

I agree. Kerry is used to speaking in an environment where statements are less likely to be taken out of context and juxtapositioned against other statements made, and also taken out of context.

Kerry, sadly, speaks to the American People as though they were intelligent and thoughtful people. While this may work well in a stump speech, most people are hearing only soundbytes and out of context quotes. Since most Americans can't be bothered to add one and one, they'll assume that since Kerry said A and B, he must flip flop.

Kerry needs to come out with a completely dumbed down set of stands. One line, maybe two, thats it, any more words and most people apparently get lost.

Tosk

Grant: All Bush has to say is, "Why did you vote against the first Gulf War but for the second one?" There's no sane explanation for that one.

I was against the first Gulf War. But I changed my mind over time and I only changed my mind once. I don't keep going back and forth on it. I was wrong and I'm not embarassed to admit it because I didn't know anything about war or foreign policy or history back then. Now I do.

Dick Gephardt voted against the first Gulf War and for the second. I saw him say on TV that he was wrong the first time and he changed his mind. No big deal.

Grant,

I should add that Kerry will NOT say he was wrong about the first Gulf War as Dick Gephardt did. That's because Gephardt has more intergrity and understands that it's okay to be wrong sometimes.

Grant: "Why did you vote against the first Gulf War but for the second one?"

Voting to give the President AUTHORITY to declare war, is not the same as voting to GO to war. No Senator voted to GO to War, only to let the President have the authority to do so, IF the was no other recourse. Many people b elieve that Bush did not hold to the agreement (He did not use War as a last resort).

Here's a link to Mark Kleinman. He says what I was trying to say, but better:

What Kerry should say about Iraq

However, Michael's point about how Kerry seems to need other people to spell out his position, is valid.

Why is this? Is it because of the pleasant "meme" about flip-flopping? Is it because it is a pleasing story for a lazy press? Or, as Michael suggests, is it because Kerry has been politically opportunistic?

Probably some of all three, I would think.

Tosk: Kerry needs to come out with a completely dumbed down set of stands. One line, maybe two, thats it, any more words and most people apparently get lost.

Not dumbed down. Clear. I read piles of books on foreign policy, and I can certainly sift through a few paragraphs from Kerry. If he was for the war but against the execution, fine. Why can't he just say that? If he voted for war hoping there would be no war then he should just say that. The problem is that he has said both and those two positions are contradictory.

JC: Michael's point about how Kerry seems to need other people to spell out his position, is valid.

Thank you.

And I should point out that Bush also needs people to spell out his position. Some of Bush's political opponents (like Paul Berman for instance) properly explain the Terror War better than he does. That is just pathetic. This is a horrible election with horrible candidates.

Wow! A Tie!

Smallest incumbent bounce ever! Wow!

I guess that Kerry can cancel the invasion of the Clinton Legacy Crew, get Bob Shrum back in the saddle, and stop focus grouping on what kind of attack can exceed invoking Hitler to be meaner.

Bring on the senate record. Pass the popcorn - the main feature isn't even close to starting.

Micheal,

I can't stress enougfh that being FOR the President to have the right to do sometimng, isn't the opposite of disapproving of HOW the President did something.

Ratatosk: I can't stress enougfh that being FOR the President to have the right to do sometimng, isn't the opposite of disapproving of HOW the President did something.

I completely agree. But that's not what Kerry said yesterday. He said it was the wrong war, not that it was the right war conducted poorly.

Let me add my voice to those noting that this post is beneath Michael's usually much higher argumentative standards.

The Grand Canyon statment was in fact dumb, but for a completely different reason. If we knew then what we know now, Bush wouldn't have been in position to request authorization and if he did Congress would have been crazy to give it.

Kerry doesn't seem to understand counterfactuals. In the envisaged counterfactual circumstance, Bush's principal argument for war is known by everyone to be unsound.

But Kerry isn't flip-flopping here.

I'm not sure where to start with your reply to me, Tosk. But I think you may have illustrated Kerry's problem quite nicely, though perhaps unintentionally.

Kerry is interviewing for the job of the Leader of the Free World. Having your statements taken out of context and juxtaposed with others comes with the territory. It comes with ANY leadership position. If you've ever made presentations to any sufficiently diverse group, especially a leadership message, you probably already know that the message never gets through to every member of the group as you intended. The more complicated the message, the more likely that it will be misinterpreted by some portion of that audience -- and the intellect and thoughtfulness of the individual listener isn't the primary factor in whether or not they "get it". It's the framework of assumptions and preconceptions that each individual carries with them. When you factor in the inevitable parsing of your statements by political opponents, clarity of speech obtains that much more of a premium.

In short, it's my opinion that it isn't the fault of the American people for failing to understand Kerry.

"In the envisaged counterfactual circumstance, Bush's principal argument for war is known by everyone to be unsound."

Now there's a sticker for a Volvo.

Read John Kerry's statement to Senate, explaining his vote to authorize Bush to take military action:

http://dailykos.com/comments/2004/9/5/2147/43979/1#1

He's been consistent.

I find it absurd to say that simply becuase you give someone the authority to invoke last-recourse options, if necessary, that you then lose the right to criticize the use of those options in situations wherin you deem their use not necessary.

Tano, I think you're misreading the Senate's constitutional responsibilities. The Senate is not empowered to conduct foreign policy. They are empowered to approve treaties and declare war. If Mr. Kerry did not believe that the president should go to war, then he should not have voted to authorize him to do so. If he did not believe that Mr. Bush would use that power once he had been authorized to do so, then Mr. Kerry had not been paying attention. Once again, it's not inconsistent. It's an abrogation of responsibility.

Tosk: Kerry needs to come out with a completely dumbed down set of stands. One line, maybe two, thats it, any more words and most people apparently get lost.

Gosh Tosk, we all are sooo dumb that Kerry needs to talk baby talk to us. Hee, hee. Look, Kerry's statements are dumbed down, and in my opinion accurately reflect his intelligence, or lack thereof.

Kerry needs to come out with a completely dumbed down set of stands. One line, maybe two, thats it, any more words and most people apparently get lost.

Except for the real bright ones like you, D. Clyde?

Those of us with lesser intellects would just prefer that he come out with one stand per issue...but then, that's just us, isn't it?

We back at a tie folks....
Smallest bounce for an incumbent in history. And it lasted less than a week (vs. Kerry's that lasted several weeks).

Next thing you know, Bush and Rove will be renting out the Howard Johnson's in Obetz, Ohio for a 3 AM rally to clarify his position on something or other...

And Michael J. Totten-

Let me add my voice to those who so clearly have stated that the counterfactual do-hickey is way below the usual intellectual thingee around here.

Phil,

I don't disagree. Kerry must understand that a well-reasoned argument doesn't fit in soundbytes. He has to make simple loud catchy statements that get his point across.

Dave Schuler,

Bush was not asking for a declaration of War. He was asking for the power to declare war as a last resort. By giving him that power, I think the Senate failed horribly, including Kerry. No single individual should ever have the power to declare war. Hell, if the Senate had held off until the Vote for War had happened, then we could hold individual senators responsible for their vote... the way things happened, it dumps all the responsibility on the head of Bush, and makes a nice cop-out for any senator.

Chuck,

How many people here are laboring under the idea that the two statement MJT quoted are somehow opposite stands? Kerry hasn't changed on these issues at all... yet we hear calls of flip flopping. Is it partisan blindness or lack of Reading Comprehension?

The only way I can see Kerry making statements that won't be twisted, is to make dumbed down "Bring It On" level statements. Who cares about well thought out discussion, when the Nightly News is only giving you a 10 second soundbyte?

---

I think that Kerry needs someone to help him talk to people, as opposed to academics/lawyers/politicans. Its something that Bush does well and Kerry sucks at.

tosk

So now Bush is beating Kerry because he is the Great Communicator?

Stop it, D. Clyde, you're killing me.

Dennis:

"Except for the real bright ones like you, D. Clyde?"

While my reading comprehension has always been advanced, I don't claim to be 'real bright'. Why some of you see the statements being discussed as flip-flopping is an unknown to me. Is it blind partisanship? Is it an Anything Anti-Kerry ideology? Is it a lcak of Reading Comprehension? I don't know.

However, I do know that when on is running for President, they seem to do better with short badass soundbytes than through well thought out arguments. Kerry could have summed up this entire thing with two sentences:

"With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility. We gave the President that Power and he used it irresponsibly."

See, its dumbed down, its a great soundbyte and no one would call that flip-flopping.

Ergo, my statement stands, Kerry has to dumb down his arguments to win in todays media soaked political system.

Dennis,

Do you have any particular reason for stating my name in every post?

Note also that there is a vast difference between being a Great Communicator (something I would never claim Bush to be) and a Great Politial Speaker (which I think that Bush is, when he follows the direction of his speechwriters).

Kerry is a good speaker, but poor on rethoric, on axioms, on soundbytes. Bush, has the rethoric, soundbytes and axioms down pat.

After seeing part of the Rep Convention, I am scared to death. My friend described it as The Nuremberg Rally on the Hudson. I would say that that about fits it.

Is anyone else upset with Zell (Cotton Mather) Miller and Arnuld's (girlie men? how cartoonish is that?) speeches?

I would say that these people sincerely believe that total war is the way to go. However,they probably won't get there, because they will bankrupt the country and destroy the middle class first. I was a Bush supporter after 911, but during the last 6 months, I've decided that these people are dangerous and crazy.

>>>"After seeing part of the Rep Convention, I am scared to death. My friend described it as The Nuremberg Rally on the Hudson. I would say that that about fits it."

Lynne,

and Bush is Hitler. Yeah yeah we know.

Having to resort to that kind of hyperbole only means that a simple statement of the facts won't impress or convince anybody.

The one thing I can say about Zell Miller is that he at least he was honest enough to show the hate that so many cover up with Political Correctness.

I wish more politicans would show their true faces, I think the American people would be scared senseless.

Besides, I'd rather face someone in a duel, than take a dagger in the back.

To all the people saying we're back at a tie...

Where is that at?! Give me a link! Everything I've seen has Bush over 50%, which spells serious trouble for Kerry. Being ahead of your opponent in the polls with a plurality is one thing, being ahead with a majority is quite another. It means enough people have settled on you for you to win the election. Is Bush back under 50%, again?

The real issue here is Kerry's lack of judgement.

Bush was very clear on his stance: Hussein was going to fully comply with the Desert Storm cease fire provisions and the UN resolutions or we were going to invade. Does anyone not remember that?

Instead, Hussein reproduced a 10 year old WMD report and interfered with the inspectors. At that point the decision was made that we weren't going to put up with him any longer. Kerry may have expected Hussein to fold, but his lack of judgement isn't Bush's problem.

There was a last minute effort to reinstate an inspections program, but that was clearly a sham solely to postpone the invasion knowing such a postponement would probably be permanent. Kerry may believe in unlimited "last" chances, but the rest of us don't.

Bush did exactly what he said he was going to do. The fact that he anticipated Hussein's failure is to his credit. Kerry's position that Bush somehow "misused" the authority is a sorry dodge to allow him to maintain a foot on each side. So, is Kerry too gullible to be our President or is he merely making these statements to appeal to a certain political group.

FantasyLand residents are welcome to continue believing someone else could have made Hussein act differently. That's a belief I'm perfectly willing to put in front of the voters.

>>>"I wish more politicans would show their true faces, I think the American people would be scared senseless."

The post-convention polls make a liar (or a fool) out of you.

Grant,

I believe that the Gallup/USA Today Poll only gave him a 2 point bounce, which places him at 52%, the margin for error is 3.5% which means that for all intents and purposes, its still a tie.

Has any incumbant president won re-election when they are at 50% or less in the polls? I haven't found one yet.

Tosk

PS - If Kerry loses this it will be his own fault.

David,

2 percentage points, which some polls are saying has already disappeared? Thats what is making a fool out of me?

Bwhahaha

Tosk: How many people here are laboring under the idea that the two statement MJT quoted are somehow opposite stands? Kerry hasn't changed on these issues at all... yet we hear calls of flip flopping.

If you think Kerry is such a model of clarity, can you give me the names of three public figures who discuss foreign policy who are more vague about where they stand?

Actually, I'll just grant you George W. Bush as one of your three. (His "we can't win the war on terror" comment qualifies him for the championships.) Give me two more.

Actually, it was anywhere from 11-13 percentage points. But where do the polls show all the people "scared senseless"? They don't.

Still laughing?

mj,

Kerry voted to give the President Great Power, it was not his position to detrermine ahead of time, if this particular President will use such power responsibily or otherwise. He voted to give power to the position, not on how such power was to be used by the fool occupying the position (Note that I consider most politicans fools and am not singling out Mr. Bush).

However, keep grasping at those straws. Kerry may totally fubar this election and you'll have four more years of the Twit in Chief.

Ye Gods,

Tosk

Lynne: I would say that these people sincerely believe that total war is the way to go.

You don't know what total war is. See Dresden, Stalingrad, and Hiroshima.

Tosk,

Was Kerry for or against the war? He has never been able to answer that question to my satisfaction. Ever. This is a question that demands a one word answer.

Everyone who was and is for the war has criticisms of the way it has been handled. Kerry is not being hammered as a flip-flopper for criticising the war's execution. I expect him to criticize the execution. That is his job. It would piss me off if he refused to do that.

I really don't think you understand my objection to him at all.

Do you have any particular reason for stating my name in every post?

Um...I was responding to your comments. When I respond to Grant's posts, I call him 'Grant', when I respond to Michael's posts, I call him 'Michael'...see how it works now?

Is it a lcak of Reading Comprehension?

Possibly. It's definately a lcak of something. I think people like Totten lcak blind partisanship, so I'm pretty sure it isn't that. When you figure out what we're lcaking, I'm sure you'll let us know.

And your spelling is lcaking. It's 'rhetoric'.

If this all sounds snarky, well, so does wondering aloud why the rest of the world isn't smart enough to be just like you.

Lynne-

Oy. How do you remember to breath?

Ratatosk:

He was asking for the power to declare war as a last resort. By giving him that power, I think the Senate failed horribly, including Kerry.

Take a look at the Joint Resolution. The language is pretty clear. It's an authorization to use force 48 hours after the president has certified to the Congress that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

That is far, far below the standard that Mr. Kerry was calling for in his speech before the Senate cited above and that he appears to want now. Again, I don't think it's inconsistent. I think John Kerry and the other Senators messed up.

To all the people saying we're back at a tie...

Where is that at?!

Grant-

In the mind of He Who Will Remain Nameless? Probably a lcak of Mindreading Comprehension on your part.

MJT,

I'm not here to defend Kerry. I think the man needs serious speech writing help, I think he needs someone to teach him about public speaking, as opposed to private lectures/speeches.

The only argument you're getting from me is that your example is not one of flip-flopping. Kerry apparently thinks that the Office of President should have authority to declare War. However, he thinks that this President used that authority poorly. The first is a principle, the second an opinion based on the exercise of that principle.

I disagree with him on the principle, I think that War should be declared in the way set forth by our governing documents. I do not think that an single person should have that sword to wield.

David,

11-13? Wow, what poll was that? It sure wasn't the CNN or Gallup polls. Did you invent one for you and your drinking buddies?

'Where do the polls show people scared sensless?'

Ummm did I say that people are scared senseless... let me look... Nope, I didn't. It apparently just appeared that way to you due to some static in communication. What I actually said is

"I wish more politicans would show their true faces, I think the American people would be scared senseless."

To clarify: If all politicans actually said what they thought without the veneer of Political Correctness, people would be scared of those in charge. Its true of any governing system (corporate, political etc), without political correctness to hide behind, you see true humans... and those are some scary animals (all of them not just the crazy ones that go into politics).

Tosk

PS - Dennis, do what makes you feel good. If you feel better after being snarky and poking fun of my poor typing, then you go right ahead. I won't complain.

Though you may do better to snark at those who will feel more than mirth at your words. ;-)

>>>"11-13? Wow, what poll was that? It sure wasn't the CNN or Gallup polls. Did you invent one for you and your drinking buddies?"

Tosk,

one was a Time magazine poll, and another was a Newsweek magazine poll. Both polls made massive headlines for a good 2-3 days. Were you on Mars?

Zell Miller was a keynote speaker showcased on PRIMETIME tv. Surely, if such honesty is going to scare people senseless, as you say, why did the GOP get such a big spike? I'm dying to hear your spin (sophistry).

Here are those Time and Newsweek polls you missed while vacationing on Mars:

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-04-2004/0002244238&EDATE=

and

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595089070,00.html

Looks like they were SCARED SENSELESS

Kerry voted to give the President Great Power, it was not his position to detrermine ahead of time, if this particular President will use such power responsibily or otherwise.

I love this argument. To be convincing, you inherently have to show that Kerry is too friking stupid to understand his role as US Senator.

Sorry, Tosk, but that is exactly what his role is when granting war powers to a President.

Grant,

Here is the link to the Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll. It has been running for many months now - it is a three day rolling average of daily polling. From March till July it showed the race tied, with neither candidate ever being more than three points away from 45 - they just both circled around that number. With the Edwards pick, and then the Dem Convention, Kerry began getting a consistent 3 point lead. Over the next month it dissipated back to a tie. You can see the results since then on the chart at the link.

This poll has shown far less volatility than any other weekly or biweekly poll. If anything it might by slightly leaning in Bush's favor, since his approval rating from them seems consistently a few points higher than the consensus of other polls.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm

Anon,
Thanks for the link to the Kerry statment on the Senate floor at the time of the war authority vote. It reveals exactly the mentality that I want from a political leader.

Michael:

Let these guys loose with a mandate to govern and we will have total war. I'd bet the ranch on it.

Ratatosk:

Bush told Kerry and the entire country the exact circumstances under which he planned to invade, those circumstances being the complete adherence to the UN resolutions and cease fire terms. Later, he invaded when those terms were violated just as he said he would. Is there anything you disagree with so far?

Now Kerry claims Bush "misused" a power which Bush in fact exercised exactly as he told congress he would. This is not a misuse, it is the express use granted the president by congress. If Kerry didn't want to invade under the circumstances outlined by the president he should have voted "no".

It is certainly regrettable Hussein didn't avert the consequences by cooperating with the UN resolutions and cease fire terms. But that doesn't make this a "misuse" of power. Kerry seems to be claiming, with your support, that Bush should have made the ultimatum to comply but backed down if Hussein called his bluff. That's certainly an option, but I hope not one too many think the US should have taken.

Your pithy comments may make you feel superior, but the fact is that of the choices facing us we ended up taking by far the best.

Lynne: Let these guys loose with a mandate to govern and we will have total war. I'd bet the ranch on it.

Find me someone who is urging total war. An unedcuated guy named Biff in Chitling Switch, Alabama doesn't count. Find someone in a position of power who wants total war. Bet you can't.

Michael -- "Was Kerry for or against the war? This is a question that demands a one word answer."

I wonder how someone like William F. Buckley would respond to your demand for a one-word answer?

“With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn’t the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war.” Buckley

There were a bunch of people who were willing to go along with this thing, and in fact DID GO ALONG WITH IT, who have now moved beyond being critical of the way things turned out. They've CHANGED THEIR MIND. Those who remain completely sold on neoconservative foreign policy don't like to pay much attention to them and their views, mainly because they can't be dismissed as rabid leftists...in fact they tend to be Republicans and moderate Democrats.

The key to this debate is pre-emption. Since the authorization is not the same as the determination, Congress is not responsible for the determination and has the option to evaluate all aspects of that determination regardless of how one voted on the authorization in judging its correctness. That's the new dynamics of pre-emption. Since there is no concrete trigger for pre-emption, the President is necessarily and appropriately exposed to criticism of his judgment unless he requests a resolution of support for his determination. Regardless of whether the first resolution stipulates that the Congress be informed, the President is still the sole decision maker. That's the risk the President runs and that's the only recourse the country has for accountability once authorization has been granted. Kerry is for authorization and against this war. Kerry has done the country a big favor by forcing an examination of the responsibility the President has to the country when exercising authority to wage pre-emptive war.

The "neo-cons" are the realists. They recognize the center cannot hold and "stability" is a chimera. Real change in the Muslim world is our only chance to avoid a truly catastrophic war. The frustrating thing for me is the alliance of the mainstream liberals with the Kissinger/Scowcraft stability fetishists. We finally have an administration willing to make an important and necessary change in American policy and it is being dragged down every step of the way by the opposing party and a tiny contingent of allies on the right. The goal of a second Bush administration must be to "formalize" the policy so that a future administration will not simply jettison it but will make the kind of incremental changes that can improve it as with World War III (The Cold War)

D. Clyde/Tano

Hours ago in Cincinatti Kerry said, "Today marks a tragic milestone in the war in Iraq; more than 1,000 of America's sons and daughters have now given their lives on behalf of their country, on behalf of freedom, the war on terror"

On Monday he referred to Iraq as the "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time".

So we're fighting "on behalf of freedom, the war on terror" in Iraq yet it's the "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time". Can he have it both ways? Sure he can! Kick that sophist can one more time for this old thread.

Rasmussen explains why his results are different than Time/Newsweek (4 pt. bounce going down to 2, then 1, now 0 vs. 10) by pointing to an anomolous pro-Kerry day on Saturday. They conclude that the real lead is 4 or 5 points. Saturday's numbers will drop out of tomorrow's report, so Bush might get an uptick. But the only explanation of going from 1.2 yesterday to a tie today, is that yesterday's polling also gave a Kerry-up result.

We back at a tie folks....
Smallest bounce for an incumbent in history. And it lasted less than a week (vs. Kerry's that lasted several weeks).

Posted by Tano at September 7, 2004 09:33 AM
**************************************************
Rasmussen keeps me confused.

He has Bush Kerry at Today 47.3 47.3

But when you look at some of his other polls.

Who is a Better Leader? Bush 50 Kerry 38
That's Bush by TWELVE POINTS!

Or

Battleground States Bush 48 Kerry 45
That's Bush by three points in BATTLEGROUND States

Trust on Nat'l Defense? Bush 52 Kerry 42
Ten points for Bush but then Defense is his strong suit.

BUT

Trust to Manage Economy? Bush 49 Kerry 45
That's supposed to be Kerry's strong suit and its Bush by four points.

In the light of these polls also on Rasmussen does

Presidential Tracking Bush 47 Kerry 47

Make any sense at all?

Michael, Kerry is a "Catholic" -- but votes to allow the killing of any human fetus its mother decides is inconvenient, even those partially born. Pro-life Catholics, who favor laws that restrict partial-birth abortions, have been pushed out of the Dems -- by folks (like yourself) who disagree, strongly.

Most white regular church-going voters support Bush, far more than Kerry, on the "domestic" issues you care about. LaShawn Barber, among other blacks, might lead a black Dem -> Rep switch among Christians. If not this election than in the near future.

The Supreme Court "amended" / changed, the US Constitution when it found a "right to privacy" that invalidates any state law against abortion. For 200 years, the Supreme Court has been fairly responsible about its huge power -- it could, for instance, decide that because of the right to privacy, drug laws are unconstitutional. It hasn't, it hasn't done much bad -- prolly more important to the US success than most presidents. It might decide on gay marriage.

A Christian minister in Sweden was preaching that the Bible says gay behavior is sinful. He was sentenced to prison for hate speech. (Ake Green) The Christian Democrat Slovak Minister of Interior, V. Palko, spoke up on his behalf.

Does Kerry favor or oppose abortion? 'he opposes it, personally, but always always always votes as if he favors it'. (100% NARAL rating) Is this not flip flop?

Kerry's position on gay marriage? 'he opposes it, personally, but opposes an FMA that would stop the Supreme Court from creating a gay marriage right'
He 'opposes' it, but we ALL know he's lying -- so Sullivan, for instance, supports him strongly on this. Is this not flip flop?

Do you really want to say you support Kerry, on gay marriage, because you honestly want gay marriages, and you know Kerry doesn't mean it when he says he opposes them?

David,

Actually, I wasn't on Mars, I went to a large midevial reenactment for 2 weeks and then spent a bit of last week and some of the weekend in the woods, sorry if I missed the polls you referred to... can you link them?

Jonathan,

So we're fighting "on behalf of freedom, the war on terror" in Iraq yet it's the "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time". Can he have it both ways?

What would you have him say? Perhaps, something like:

"Well, 1000 of our country's children have died in a country that we invaded, based on faulty intel. We now know that Saddam didn't have any WMD's and posed no immediate threat to us. Let us mourn these 1000 wasted lives, not fighting for our freedom, but for lack of intelligence."

Is that what you want him to say? In a political landscape like todays, he'd be lynched. All politicans, supportive of the War or not, will not likely say anything negative when talking about the troops, esp those who died. If thats your flip flop, you better get some sandals.

Tom Grey,

I think that Kerry (in the case of abortion) has two views. View One is a personal view, based on the religious dogma of his Christian upbringing. His personal view is that Abortion is wrong.

However, as a Senator, his personal views should not affect policy. We live in a land of freedoms, a land of choices and tolerence for other ideas. In that world, it is not the place of the Federal Government to legislate everyone's morality compass, to align with the personal feelings of some politicans.

Yes, you can disagree with something and still support it, its called principles.

But you can call it flip flops, won't change what it is, but it will make you feel better rolling up to November.

Its the same on Gay marriage, he disagrees with the principle of ammending the constitution to restrict rights. Lots of people agree with him.

I personally don't care if Gays get married, I don't care if people have abortions. Those are their decisions. If some pre-historic deity is going to rain down fire and sulpher on them for getting married or aborting a baby, fine. It was their choice, they get to bear the consequences. Where in the bible does it say "And if you cannot convience your Brother, then pass a law and toss him in jail"?

I always thought that alll those Americans who went to Church read things like:

8 Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble.
9 Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. 10For,
"Whoever would love life
and see good days
must keep his tongue from evil
and his lips from deceitful speech.
11He must turn from evil and do good;
he must seek peace and pursue it.
12For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous
and his ears are attentive to their prayer,
but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil."1
13Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good?
14But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. "Do not fear what they fear2 ; do not be frightened."3
15But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

Hrmmm, I'm sure that Peter just forgot the bit about passing laws to force everyone to do God's Will....

Tosk
1 Peter 3:8-16

But, thats ok, I'm sure God would much prefer John Kerry to judge, than he or his Son... right?

D. Clyde-

You keep writing stuff like that and sooner or later (probably sooner) someone's going to tie a lobster bib around your neck to help you keep your shirt dry.

Dennis,

Good rebuttal. How will I ever keep up with your constant wit?

D Clyde

In politics, you always choose the lesser evil. A brief summary:

Foreign Policy
Kerry: "Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response." (from his convention speech)i.e. Kerry will wait for an attack and then respond.

Bush: Pre-emptive war where it might be necessary seems to be his policy, though he doesn't always handle it in the best way.

Kerry (via Edwards): Giving Iran nuclear fuel will allow us to monitor their use of it and make sure they're not creating nukes, notwithstanding previous experience in doing the same thing with the DPRK in the 90s.

Bush: Maybe if we wait long enough, the Iran/nuke issue will go away.

Domestic Policy

Kerry: Deficits are bad, so to tackle them he'd only raise taxes on the "rich". But he also wants to spend a lot more money on everyone - so either deficits are not bad or taxes have to go up on more than just the "rich".

Bush: Deficits aren't so bad, so he only wants to increase spending by a ridiculous amount rather than a ludicrous amount. Meanwhile, he hopes that cutting taxes will improve the economy (it will) and that this somehow will make up for his runaway spending (it won't).

***

Not a very hard choice, I'd say.

Ariel,

I dunno... that seems to be a great summary of both sides. Unfortunately, I don't like either stance on any of those issues.

Ick

D. Clyde-

If you would put forth logical arguments supported by fact, rather than either trotting out claims of intellectual or moral superiority as faux validation of your opinions, such as they are, you wouldn't be mocked in the first place. That would probably constitute the best way of keeping up with my wit.

Dennis,

Nah, I tried logical arguments here.... Usually they're supported by people who already believe it and not supported by people who don't already believe it. Whats the fun in that...

And I'm pretty sure that a half dead sloth on a 3 day opium trip could keep up with your wit.

;-P

Tosk