John Kerry Indecisive? Nahhhhh!

[GAAZ]

JOHN KERRY ON GOING INTO IRAQ



KERRY: “George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.” (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/4/03)

“I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Announcement Of Presidential Candidacy, Mount Pleasant, SC, 9/2/03)



KERRY ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION



His first event, a town hall in Columbia, as the decorated Vietnam veteran tries to win the support of some of the state's 415,000 veterans. While Kerry was speaking, Wesley Clark was criticizing him on the issue of affirmative action. The retired general accuses Kerry of not taking responsibility in last night's debate for saying back in 1992, according to Clark, that affirmative action was "inherently limited and divisive." We caught up with the Senator, who said he never called affirmative action divisive, and accused Clark of playing politics.

KERRY: That's not what I said. I said there are people who believe that. And I said mend it, don't end it. He's trying to change what I said, but you can go read the quote. I said very clearly I have always voted for it. I've always supported it. I've never, ever condemned it. I did what Jim Clyburn did and what Bill Clinton did, which is mend it. And Jim Clyburn wouldn't be supporting it if it were otherwise. So let's not have any politics here. Let's keep the truth.”



but…..



“[W]hile praising affirmative action as ‘one kind of progress’ that grew out of civil rights court battles, Kerry said the focus on a rights-based agenda has ‘inadvertently driven most of our focus in this country not to the issue of what is happening to the kids who do not get touched by affirmative action, but … toward an inherently limited and divisive program which is called affirmative action.’ That agenda is limited, he said, because it benefits segments of black and minority populations, but not all. And it is divisive because it creates a ‘perception and a reality of reverse discrimination that has actually engendered racism.’” (Lynne Duke, “Senators Seek Serious Dialogue On Race,” The Washington Post, 4/8/92)





JOHN KERRY ON SUPPORTING OUR TROOPS



“I Actually Did Vote For The $87 Billion Before I Voted Against It.” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Blasts Bush On Protecting Troops,” The Boston Globe, 3/17/04)





JOHN KERRY ON WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

Tuesday night (APRIL 27,2004) on MSNBC's "Hardball," Kerry retreated.

"It appears, as they peel away the weapons of mass destruction issue - and we may yet find them," he told host Chris Matthews. "Look, I want to make it clear. Who knows if a month from now, three months from now, you find some weapons? You may." It's quite a turnaround for Kerry, who just a few weeks ago was complaining: "George Bush sold us on going to war with Iraq based on the threat of weapons of mass destruction. But we still haven't found them. ... We were misled about weapons of mass destruction."

JOHN KERRY ON BRINGING HOME OUR TROOPS

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5745916/

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/02/kerry_edwards_defend_their_agenda/

[Reverend]

.....Man I should have seen this coming a mile away, but I didn't so I'm not prepared to answer in a respectable and adult way. Therefore GAAZ, I suggest you wait for me to compile information that shows that while he does flip flop, so does Bush by doing the opposite of promises he made on the campaign trail.

So don't worry my best republican, I'll have us ready to chew each others' heads off soon

[Sperrit]

Politics... ugh.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: It's not the players that surprize me, it's that more people don't see the grander play that's moving along with them. Kerry and Bush are simply acting out the roles that they feel they need to play, neither of them considering the larger picture or the true betterment of our nation. We're embroilled in party politics, here. It's no longer about wanting to get your views into the Whitehouse or trying to make the nation a better place, it's about one-up-man-ship, who gets the last laugh, 'We win, you lose'. When I vote this year it won't be for a president that I think deserves to be in the Whitehouse, it will be a choice between the lesser of two evils.

Join the Fun

[Reverend]

Well, at least I feel better knowing thar there is someone else out there who 'gets it.' Really I have no love for Kerry, as he's just the usual flavor of american politics and it is a really bland and unappealing flavor. But when compared to the other choice we have, I'll take bland over appalling any day.

[Therin]

I agree with Sperrit. I don't like either of our candidates, but as so many people have said, anything is better than Bush again.

[Ultrawolf]

[Therin]

No. Better to cycle through all the devils until we find the one angel.

[Graillik Tur]

No way. I don't believe that Bush isn't doing what he 'thinks' is best for the nation. And I would like to point out that Kerry won 3 purple hearts in 4 months and still had time to commit war crimes. When did he sleep? They don't give you a Purple Heart for a minor injury. Has anyone else seen the news about his stories of Cambodia not matching up with his fellow troops? Kerry is just as much a spoiled rich boy as Bush, which I sadly have to admit Bush to being. But I being from Texas and understanding in mind set what Bush did, I like him. I don't like Kerry. While Bush has not kept all of his promises, no president ever does. Bush has done some great things for the country. So be greatful for what you get and not what you didn't.

[Silver Adept]

Kettle, you've got the right idea. But the problem is that when you start playing "lesser of two evils", you're still playing party politics. Why not vote ideologically like we're supposed to do? Even if it does mean that a third-party candidate gets your vote (and it may mean that the incumbent is re-elected), it's better, in my opinion, to have voted for the candidate that best represents you than to vote against the condidate that worst represents you for one that doesn't represent you all that much, either.

[Doot]

It's a common misconception that a president is to blame for every action the nation takes. In light of both the candidates not being the best in the world, I understand most would venture to say to get a fresh set if eyes in office to take care of problems, but even then do you think they are educated enough of the current issues to know what truly is going on? Sounds like we would endure a lot of "catching up" on the President's behalf if Kerry does get it.