Here is the relevant section of the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq which John Kerry voted FOR on 10 Nov 2003:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
August 2004: In Response To President’s Question About How He Would Have Voted If He Knew Then What He Knows Now, Kerry Confirmed That He Would Still Have Voted For Use Of Force Resolution. SEN. JOHN KERRY: "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it's the right authority for a president to have. But I would have used that authority as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively. I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has." (CNN’s "Inside Politics," 8/9/04)
29 September, 2004: In response to Dian Sawyer’s question, “Was the war worth it?” SEN JOHN KERRY: “We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today.”
This is the latest Iraq position that John Kerry has staked in this campaign – his 10th by some counts. You’d need an Ouija board to figure the actual number of Kerry flips and flops on this issue. Is this a flip or a flop? Nobody is quite sure. It’s sort of like trying to count rain drops on the sidewalk when you were a kid, you can count the first few, but it quickly becomes a futile exercise.
John Kerry’s bigger problem here is that this demonstrates that he doesn’t really stand for anything. And, the problem with not standing for anything is, well…you don’t stand for anything. It seems to me Americans are more likely to vote for someone who is straight-forward and honest even though they might disagree on an issue or two rather than a Gumby candidate who tries to bend his position on issues to conform to the views of whichever voting block he happens to be addressing.
The Iraq war is only the most obvious issue to illustrate this point. John Kerry’s line on the war has taken more turns over a short distance than the line on an Etch-A-Sketch in the hands of a three-year-old. I know it might be hard to stay on message with some obscure topic such as trade policy with Holland with regard to importation of wooden shoes and windmill statues. But a candidate for president ought to be able to stake out a single coherent position on what he has made THE major issue of the election.
So how does Kerry arrive at his daily positions on Iraq? Some think it’s the politicos Kerry has chosen to surround himself with. I think it’s more likely that Kerry consults a Magic 8 Ball on Iraq more than any of his political “experts”. I can see Kerry shaking the Magic 8 Ball as he gets off the bus before a speech, “Am I for the Iraq war?” The 8 Ball answers, “Yes – definitely”. But at the next stop the 8 Ball says, “My sources say no”. After three months of this nonsense, someone took the 8 Ball away or changed all the answers to “No” and pounded into Kerry’s head, “You are the anti-war candidate!”
But for Kerry it may be too late. He didn’t vote for the war before he voted against it because he had strong beliefs in liberty for the people of the Middle East. He voted for it because that is what his political calculation told him to do. He didn’t turn anti-war because of some new and significant change in the war situation. He turned anti-war to get to the left of Howard Dean in the Democrat primary. He didn’t turn back pro-war after winning the nomination because that was where his heart was but rather he thought that was where the votes were. He didn’t make his final tack left because that’s what his conscious told him to do. Kerry tacked left again because the polls told him; with the economy improving, this is the only issue remaining with which he could attack the president.
No comments:
Post a Comment