Kerry waffled on Iraq...only DK & Joe were firm

[windansea]

blah blah blah this is what I really meant

[kstewart33]

1. Waffled?

I thought his explanation was clear and convincing. He's finally got the answer right. No waffling there.

[overground1]

2. I agree. I think Lieberman beat Kerry in this debate. He carved his niche

and stood his ground. Kerry didn't.

[trumad]

4. Well hell...it's easy to hop on a bandwagon

like Lieb does....

[windansea]

6. at least he says what he means

[overground1]

20. no, it was Kerry who hopped on the bandwagon - TWICE!

First with the politically "safe" and "patriotic" vote for IWR. And later on Howard Dean's anti-war message.

Even though his position is unpopular in this primary, Lieberman is standing firm and taking the fire, unlike Kerry who turned tail and ran at the first sight of fire a long time ago.

For that, I respect Lieberman.
I cannot say the same for Kerry.

[blm]

3. nuanced positions aren't easy soundbites.

He sounded just like where the American people are with it. They'll support going to war if there's no alternative. Kerry made clear that he would have followed that basic tenet.

[windansea]

5. nope

he dodged the question..he wants it both ways

[blm]

7. I have no problem understanding what he said. But then

I always understood his position as I have been interested in the issues involved in that region since 96 and have paid closer attention than most.

[windansea]

8. sorry but saying you voted for something

but didn't understand what it meant is waffling

nuance schmuance

[candy331]

9. Fox declared him the winner

Fox pundits(Fred Barnes @ Krauthammmer sp) declared him the winner by a long short, might be a bad sign coming from those two.

[Jerseycoa]

10. Eeew, poor Kerry nt

[jpgray]

11. (sigh) Here I have to quote the IWR again

the President shall--

(1) certify to Congress that--

(A) Iraq is continuing to attempt to obtain conventional, chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and carry out ballistic missile programs, and provide appropriate documentation thereof;

(B) Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States or United States interests in the region, and provide appropriate documentation thereof;

(C) the United States has used all appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to obtain compliance by Iraq with the United Nations Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, 677, and 678;

This goes EXACTLY with what Kerry said--he voted for Bush to do these EXACT things--this is in the resolution! He certified those things to Congress, and he lied each time. That the press ignores it and makes KERRY look like the villain is just further evidence of why the media is so lousy at helping one understand the issues. If you don't read the legislation, you won't have much of an ability to speak about it.

[windansea]

12. uh huh

then how come Joe knew exactly what he was voting for and DK knew exactly what he was voting against?

they all saw the same resolution right?

[jpgray]

14. Doesn't this say EXACTLY what Kerry said?

Joe is spinning his vote to make the others look as though they are waffling and to portray himself as the paragon of security and consistency--it is a campaign, after all.

But the language is right there--GWB lied about exhausting diplomacy, and he lied about Iraq being an "imminent threat". Where is John Kerry wrong in his statement on the debate? Where did he waffle, exactly? He said the president was required to do both things, and he didn't do them. Where is the waffle?

[windansea]

15. ok if Joe is spinning .......so is DK

want to rationalize that one??

they all saw the same resolution...Joe said yes means yes

DK said no means no...and Mr Waffle said blah blah maybe I didn't mean yes it was really a no

[jpgray]

16. Show me the waffle--match Kerry's statement to the IWR

It matches perfectly. The IWR requires GWB to do those things, and he didn't do them. That is all Kerry said about it at the debate, and I don't see how it is a waffle.

DK is capitalizing on his realizing that GWB was willing to lie to Congress in order to get the authorization. DK should be commended for that, and he is rightfully taking credit for it.

You can bash John Kerry for not expecting Bush to lie outright to Congress about those things if you want, but I can't see how his statement is a waffle. He says Bush was required to do these things, and that he didn't do them. That is exactly correct, as I showed you above--Bush was required to prove Iraq an imminent threat and to exhaust all diplomatic means, and he lied and failed at both. That's the extent of Kerry's debate statement, and I still don't see the waffle. I'll ask again, where is it?

[windansea]

17. you are playing word games now

WHEN did Kerry take his current "position" (and I use the term facetiously) on his IWR vote? If I recall correctly...he didn't deny his yes was a yes until Dean flanked him on the issue

the fact remains....Joe said yes...still says yes...DK said no...still says no...they all saw the same resolution and KNEW what it meant

[jpgray]

18. Show me the waffle. What is so hard about this?

You say it is a waffle. Kerry stated in his speech before the IWR was signed that it requires Bush to exhaust peaceful means and declare Iraq an imminent threat. He still says it. Where is the waffle? I'll be waiting.

[windansea]

19. show me a link to the speech please n/t

[jpgray]

21. Here you go

And here's a quote from it (October 9, 2002), saying the exact thing he said in the debate:

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

edit: I have to go to bed now, but I'll be glad to answer any further questions you have on this in the morning. Good night. :hi:

[sandnsea]

23. I don't think that's right

I'm not sure what you're quoting, but it just doesn't ring a bell to any war resolution I've read. There were several floating around at the time. The IWR passed does not use the words imminent threat or all appropriate diplomatic and peaceful means. Not that I remember anyway. I recall it saying authorized military action to enforce UN resolutions OR protect U.S. security, with a few other words scattered in there.

The point is that Kerry has been consistent that Saddam be held accountable, that the IWR was needed to convince the UN that it was time to move forward in getting inspectors back into Iraq, and that war was authorized as a last resort if progress wasn't made. Bush didn't do anything in accordance with 200 years of U.S. policy and made a disaster of the whole thing. It may not fit on a bumper sticker but I don't want my President's war policy to fit on a bumper sticker anyway.

[mzmolly]

13. I gotta admit, I respect the HELL out of Joe Lieberman, I disagree with

him, but I respect him greatly.

Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton, Braun... are all consistant on the war. The others are trying to play both sides.

[Forkboy]

22. Kerry? Waffle?

tellus something we didn't know.

[corporatewhore]

24. mmmm..waffels