Kerry says He wouldn't have ousted Saddam!

[theim]

Kerry Says He Wouldn't Have Ousted Saddam

12 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!


By RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer

NEW YORK - Staking out new ground on Iraq (news - web sites), Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) said Monday he would not have overthrown Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) had he been in the White House, and he accused President Bush (news - web sites) of "stubborn incompetence," dishonesty and colossal failures of judgment. Bush said Kerry was flip-flopping.


AP Photo




Latest headlines:
· Kerry, Bush on Postwar Iraq and Its Costs
AP - 2 minutes ago
· Kerry Says He Wouldn't Have Ousted Saddam
AP - 12 minutes ago
· Gruesome Video Shows Last Moments of U.S. Hostage
Reuters - 13 minutes ago
Special Coverage





Less than two years after voting to give Bush authority to invade Iraq, the Democratic candidate said the president had misused that power by rushing to war without the backing of allies, a post-war plan or proper equipment for U.S. troops. "None of which I would have done," Kerry said.


"Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell," he added. "But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."


Bush responded in kind, interpreting the comment to mean that Kerry believes U.S. security would be better with Saddam still in power. "He's saying he prefers the stability of a dictatorship to the hope and security of democracy," the Republican incumbent said.


"Today, my opponent continued his pattern of twisting in the wind," Bush said at a New Hampshire rally. "He apparently woke up this morning and has now decided, No, we should not have invaded Iraq, after just last month saying he would have voted for force even knowing everything we know today."


Kerry called on Bush to do a much better job rallying allies, training Iraqi security forces, hastening reconstruction plans and ensuring that elections are conducted on time. But his speech was thin on details, with Kerry saying Bush's miscalculations had made solutions harder to come by.


Bush cited Kerry's four-point plan and dismissed it as proposing "exactly what we're currently doing."


Both candidates addressed partisan crowds, drawing cheers and hoots as they stretched each other's records and rhetoric — mixing facts with political creativity toward the same goal: raising doubts about the other man's credibility.


With more than 1,000 U.S. troops killed in Iraq, including nearly 900 since Bush declared an end to major combat, with free elections in doubt, reconstruction efforts stalled and violence and kidnappings on the rise, Iraq could be Bush's biggest political liability. Even some Republican senators have begun to publicly second-guess the president's policies.


But Kerry has failed to capitalize thus far, struggling for months to find a clear, consistent way to differentiate his views from those of his Democratic rivals during the primary season and, since the spring, his general election foe in the White House.


Kerry's advisers say they're not sure whether it is too late for the Democrat to make the Iraq critique resonate. Polls show voters favor Bush over Kerry on Iraq and terrorism. The president shines the spotlight on his foreign policy agenda with a visit Tuesday to the United Nations (news - web sites).


Kerry said in August that he would have voted in 2002 to give Bush war-making ability, even had he known no weapons of mass destruction would be found. He stood by the vote again Monday, saying the president needed to use the threat of force to "act effectively" against Saddam.


He made a distinction between that vote to grant a president war-making authority and what he himself would have done as commander in chief with such power.


"Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious?" Bush's presidential rival said at New York University.


"Is he really saying to Americans that if we had known there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to al-Qaida, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is resoundingly no because a commander in chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe."


Kerry called national security "a central issue in this campaign," a bow to the fact that the race is being waged on Bush's terrain. Under pressure from anxious Democrats, Kerry is trying to cede none of that turf.


"Invading Iraq was a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight," he said.





Kerry used the word "truth" a dozen times to say Bush had dodged it. That doesn't count the number of times he said the president "failed to level" with Americans or misled and confused them. He blamed Bush for "colossal failures of judgment."

"This is stubborn incompetence," he said.

Kerry has sounded more hawkish, as in December when Democratic primary rival Howard Dean (news - web sites) said the world was not safer with Saddam out of power. Anybody who believes that, Kerry said, doesn't "have the judgment to be president."

Reading that quote to his GOP crowd on Monday, Bush cracked: "I could not have said it better."

OK So let me get on top of things...

Kerry votes for the war
Kerry votes against funding the war (But after he votes FOR it)
Kerry says it was the right thing
Kerry says anyone who thinks America is not safer w/o Saddam does not have the judgement to be prez
Kerry says he would have voted for the war even knowing what we know today
Kerry says he would get US soldiers out of Iraq in 4 years
Kerry says it was the wrong war at the wrong time
Kerry says ousting Saddam was wrong

Is that it? I think I mighta missed something...

 

[Annie]

Theim, "I think I mighta missed something..." I'm sure you did, it's been over 12 minutes now...

 

[theim]

ya know when Rudy gave his speach at the RNC and said "At this rate, [Kerry] has time to change positions 4 or 5 more times!" ?

I kinda thought he was joking.

 

[5stringJeff]

This should be the next RNC commercial.

Clip #1: Kerry says anyone who thinks America is not safer without Saddam does not have the judgement to be president.

Clip #2: Kerry says he would not have overthrown Saddam Hussein had he been in the White House.

Guaranteed 5 more points for Bush.

 

[musicman]

Theim, "I think I mighta missed something..." I'm sure you did, it's been over 12 minutes now...

Dang it! That's what I was gonna say!

 

[onedomino]

Holy smoke screen! No doubt Kerry's handlers think they've seen something in the poll data that justifies the flip-flop. They're trying to make voters forget he voted for funding the war. The Kerry campaign is looking more desperate everyday. Kerry should remember he is running in the United States, not France.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

Kerry called on Bush to do a much better job rallying allies

I find it hilarious how he Kerry says that he will repair relationships with US allies, and then he says things like this:

"When they talk about a coalition - that's the phoniest thing I ever heard," Kerry said. "You've got 500 troops here, 500 troops there, and it's American troops that are 90 per cent of the combat casualties and it's American taxpayers that are paying 90 per cent of the cost of the war."

http://theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10755376%5E7583,00.html

That's nice. Call the coalition phony because they didn't send thousands and thousands of troops. I'm sure the people there really like hearing that the coalition that they are a part of is phony.

 

[nakedemperor]

I find it hilarious how he Kerry says that he will repair relationships with US allies, and then he says things like this:


That's nice. Call the coalition phony because they didn't send thousands and thousands of troops. I'm sure the people there really like hearing that the coalition that they are a part of is phony.

When they listed the coalition members, they included Costa Rica as part of the "coalition", despite the fact that a) Costa Rica has no standing army to contribute troops to the cause and b) they have sent no money whatsoever to the cause. When a country merely backs the notion of going to war but not the war itself, I don't think its fair to call them part of the coalition. In fact, I'm pretty sure that Costa Rica asked for its name to be 'crossed off the list' recently. This is the type of phoniness that he was refering to.

Kerry wasn't trying to disparage the countries that are doing what they can, he was trying to point out that many of our closest historical allies, countries with the economic and military capability to make a significant contribution to the war effort, were systematically alienated from the effort. It would be a boon to the United States to bring back some of our troops that are shouldering the vast majority of the combat duty, and to start paying less of the total cost of war. There's a thread about teachers who are paying for their students school supplies out of their own pockets on this board, one of the immediate benefits that could be reaped from not having to write all the checks, not to mention fill all the body bags.

Then again, Kerry will probably be praising Costa Rica's valient efforts in 10...9...8....

 

[CSM]

When they listed the coalition members, they included Costa Rica as part of the "coalition", despite the fact that a) Costa Rica has no standing army to contribute troops to the cause and b) they have sent no money whatsoever to the cause. When a country merely backs the notion of going to war but not the war itself, I don't think its fair to call them part of the coalition. In fact, I'm pretty sure that Costa Rica asked for its name to be 'crossed off the list' recently. This is the type of phoniness that he was refering to.

Kerry wasn't trying to disparage the countries that are doing what they can, he was trying to point out that many of our closest historical allies, countries with the economic and military capability to make a significant contribution to the war effort, were systematically alienated from the effort. It would be a boon to the United States to bring back some of our troops that are shouldering the vast majority of the combat duty, and to start paying less of the total cost of war. There's a thread about teachers who are paying for their students school supplies out of their own pockets on this board, one of the immediate benefits that could be reaped from not having to write all the checks, not to mention fill all the body bags.

Then again, Kerry will probably be praising Costa Rica's valient efforts in 10...9...8....

What do you think the chances are that France, Germany, Spain or any other traditional ally will send money or troops no matter who asks them?

 

[nakedemperor]

What do you think the chances are that France, Germany, Spain or any other traditional ally will send money or troops no matter who asks them?

Kerry! France will always help out a native son!

 

[SPIKESMYGOD]

Tim Duncan2000-

True! And to boot, Kerry claims that he can get the rest of the world- France, to him- into Iraq by cutting them in on the rebuilding contracts. Gee, that sounds like a "bribe" to ME!

Actually, I think John Kerry WOULD have stayed out of Iraq: It would have cut his number of possible flip flops to a minimum.

 

[fubar]

Kerry wasn't trying to disparage the countries that are doing what they can, he was trying to point out that many of our closest historical allies, countries with the economic and military capability to make a significant contribution to the war effort, were systematically alienated from the effort.

Do you mean France germany and Russia ? Who told us they would veto an invasion under all circumstances ? Fuck them, they are up top their eyeballs in the Oil for food scandal and are afraid the world is going to find out how two faced and corrupt they are.

They were however "systematically alienated" from profiteering from the rebuilding of Iraq after American blood overthrew Saddam.

 

[Avatar4321]

Sean was playing a clip today where Kerry was saying that anyone who didnt think Saddam was a threat and needed to be taken out isnt qualified for the Presidency. I think we should take that quote and todays quotes and turn it into an ad telling everyone to take John Kerry's advice and not vote for anyone who doesnt think Saddam should have been ousted.

Anyone want to start a new 527?

BTW anyone heard of the court strike out some of McCain Fiengold today?

 

[Annie]

Bush responded:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/21/politics/campaign/21campaign.html?th

..."Today my opponent continued his pattern of twisting in the wind with new contradictions on old positions on Iraq," Mr. Bush said in New Hampshire and later in Midtown Manhattan, where he and Mr. Kerry held fund-raisers a few blocks apart.

"Incredibly, he now believes our national security would be stronger with Saddam Hussein in power, not in prison. He's saying he prefers the stability of the dictatorship to the hope and security of democracy. I couldn't disagree more and not so long ago, neither did my opponent."

In New York, Mr. Bush said the decision to send troops into Iraq was the most difficult one he had made as president but added, "Knowing what I know today, I would have made the same decision..."

 

[Avatar4321]

I think Kerry and his advisors seem to think that Americans havent started paying attention until now and if they are consistant from here on out they will fine.. They are counting on the American people being idiots.

 

[Annie]

I think Kerry and his advisors seem to think that Americans havent started paying attention until now and if they are consistant from here on out they will fine.. They are counting on the American people being idiots.

Or maybe he thinks 'deep down' Americans are anti-war? Anyhow, as David Brooks says, 'at least he has taken a stand...':

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/21/opinion/21brooks.html?th

...But he did, more than at any time in the past year, stake out a clear contrast with Bush.

The president's case is that the world is safer with Saddam out of power, and that we should stay as long as it takes to help Iraqis move to democracy. Kerry's case is that the world would be safer if we'd left Saddam; his emphasis is on untangling the United States from Iraq and shifting attention to more serious threats.

Rhetorically, this was his best foreign policy speech by far (it helps to pick a side). Politically, it was risky. Kerry's new liberal tilt makes him more forceful on the stump, but opens huge vulnerabilities. Does he really want to imply that 1,000 troops died for nothing?

By picking the withdrawal camp, he has assigned himself a clear task. Right now 54 percent of likely voters believe that the U.S. should stay as long as it takes to rebuild Iraq, while 39 percent believe that we should leave as soon as possible. Between now and Nov. 2, Kerry must flip those numbers.

Substantively, of course, Kerry's speech is completely irresponsible. In the first place, there is a 99 percent chance that other nations will not contribute enough troops to significantly decrease the U.S. burden in Iraq. In that case, John Kerry has no Iraq policy. The promise to bring some troops home by summer will be exposed as a Disneyesque fantasy.

More to the point, Kerry is trying to use multilateralism as a gloss for retreat. If "the world" is going to be responsible for defeating Moktada al-Sadr and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, then no one will be responsible for defeating them. The consequences for the people of Iraq and the region will be horrific.

Finally, if the whole war is a mistake, shouldn't we stop fighting tomorrow? What do you say to the last man to die for a "profound diversion"?

But that is what the next few weeks are going to be about. This country has long needed to have a straight up-or-down debate on the war. Now that Kerry has positioned himself as the antiwar candidate, it can...

 

[musicman]

I think Kerry and his advisors seem to think that Americans havent started paying attention until now and if they are consistant from here on out they will fine.. They are counting on the American people being idiots.

But of course. It goes to the core emotion of liberalism - utter contempt for America.