Here are some of the positions about Iraq that Kerry held simultaneously during the debate (All of these statements, while cut and pasted from their respective locations in the debate, are in appropriate context).
Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, but he didn't have weapons of mass destruction, but he might have had weapons of mass destruction:
But we also have to be smart, Jim. And smart means not diverting your attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan against Osama bin Laden and taking if off to Iraq ... where the reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction, not the removal of Saddam Hussein.Saddam was a threat, but he wasn't really a threat
...
What I think troubles a lot of people in our country is that the president has just sort of described one kind of mistake. But what he has said is that, even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, even knowing there was no imminent threat, even knowing there was no connection with Al Qaida, he would still have done everything the same way. Those are his words. Now, I would not.
...
We didn't guard the foreign office, where you might have found information about weapons of mass destruction.
I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that. And from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority, because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat, and I did accept that intelligence.But even though Kerry says he was right to vote to give the President the authority to invade Iraq, he implicitly admits that he wasn't exercising his oversight responsibilities very well because the President wasn't yet ready to act on that authority
...
He also said Saddam Hussein would have been stronger. That is just factually incorrect. Two-thirds of the country was a no-fly zone when we started this war. We would have had sanctions. We would have had the U.N. inspectors. Saddam Hussein would have been continually weakening.
And he rushed the war in Iraq without a plan to win the peace. Now, that is not the judgment that a president of the United States ought to make. You don't take America to war unless have the plan to win the peace.Bush should never have been given the authority to go to war in the first place because experts say that the war would be unwinnable. But Kerry will win it anyway.
You know, the president's father did not go into Iraq, into Baghdad, beyond Basra. And the reason he didn't is, he said -- he wrote in his book -- because there was no viable exit strategy. And he said our troops would be occupiers in a bitterly hostile land. That's exactly where we find ourselves today.The war for which it was not a mistake for Kerry to vote Bush the authority, was a mistake. On the other hand, it was not a mistake
...
And I'm going to lead those troops to victory.
...
The national intelligence assessment that was given to the president in July said, best-case scenario, more of the same of what we see today; worst-case scenario, civil war. I can do better.
This president has made, I regret to say, a colossal error of judgment.Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 30, 2004 11:56 PM
...
Yes, we have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we're there. We have to succeed. We can't leave a failed Iraq. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake of judgment to go thereand take the focus off of Osama bin Laden. It was.Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?
...
LEHRER: Speaking of Vietnam, you spoke to Congress in 1971, after you came back from Vietnam, and you said, quote, How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?KERRY: No
Grade of post = D-
Very weak evidence. Is this all you have?
I hope you do see that you are, as Socrates would have said, saving the appearances of your Flip Flop arguement.
Let's look at one simple example of one of the many argumentative problems in the post ok?
You drawing a conclusion that does not follow - a classic non sequitur.
"I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat"
" Saddam Hussein would have been continually weakening. "
Your conclusion = These 2 statements contradict each other.
This does not follow however.
Note that a "threat" can be a gathering threat, a contained threat, a weakening threat and a miriad of other gradiations thereof. As such one could easily have a weakening threat (as we had before the war with Iraq)
Thinking of things in simply Black and White can lead you down a very dark dank road my friend. Doing so you will surely not see certain complex alternatives and ideas.
Try again. And this also time try and not mistake Kerry's remarks regarding the president and Kerry's own opinions.
But please remember Bush lost the debate plain and simple.
Posted by: sgo on October 1, 2004 10:24 AMToo true--this post stretches (a LOT) to try and prove Kerry's contradicting himself, and it just doesn't work.
Another example... you suggest that this quote contradicts Kerry's assertion that there are no WMD in Iraq: "We didn't guard the foreign office, where you might have found information about weapons of mass destruction."
Now in the Bush fantasy world, I know that many folks cannot see the difference between actual Weapons of Mass Destruction and "Weapons of Mass Destruction related program activities" -- but rational, thinking human beings know there's a difference. What Kerry was obviously saying was that any efforts that Saddam and Iraq may have been making towards gaining WMDs may have been available in the foreign office... and, you know, the military might have wanted to keep an eye on that.
To suggest that he's saying that because such information might have been in their offices is like saying Saddam HAD WMD because he was interested in acquiring them. That's just plain faulty logic.
Posted by: EstimatedProphet on October 1, 2004 01:50 PMI agree with EstimatedProphet and sgo, but would go even further.
Kerry pointed out that the stated reason we went to war in Iraq was to disarm Sadaam of his WMDs. (By the way, notice how Bush went out of his way not to use (read: mispronounce) the world 'nuclear'?) So he is saying that was a mistake (because Saddam had in fact already disarmed, so war was unnecessarily excessive), but even if you accepted it as the right thing to do, if that was really what you wanted to do and were going to do a good job of it, Bush & Co. failed to execute a good plan for disarming Iraq because, among other things, they didn't even guard the evidence of where the WMDs were once they captured Bhagdad.
I know it is difficult for Bush and some of his followers to understand something as complicated as a hypothetical and hold that in their heads alongside a statement that the hypothetical is not true, but we expect you, Mr. Shark, to be able to.
Posted by: Simon on October 1, 2004 04:02 PMThank you for your comments -- i completely agree -- please help support the DNC by participating on www.ilovebillclinton.com
Posted by: R Naito on October 6, 2004 04:33 PMAlthough I do agree that these examples are not very good at showing Kerry's conflicting stance(s) on Iraq, I do have 2 comments. Number 1. Everyone knew that Sadam had WMDs, he used them on his own people. Practically every intelligence agency in the world said he had it, not just ours. I agree that this inacurate information mandates some major action in reforming our intelligence agencies, but the fact remains that the Duelfer report and other denials of WMDs is an AFTERTHOUGHT, hindsight is 2020. Even Kerry believed they had WMDs. Number 2. You dont allow someone to have a gun if you dont expect them to use it. You dont get a gun to hurt people, you get one to kill them. If senator Kerry voted for the use of force, it is extremely naive to think that Bush wouldnt use it. If he thought that diplomacy had not been fully explored he should have voted against it. The fact that he voted for the use of force is contradictory to his statments in the debate. On a side note, his "protest" to vote agains the 87 billion dollars for equipment for the forces in Iraq shows a huge disrespect for the persons in the armed forces. The fact is that he had his chances to oppose Bush's actions, but to deny the troops any advantage in fighting is NOT the way to show his disaproval. Like I said, its a disrespect to "punish" the soldiers because you dont agree with the reasons for the war.
Is0butane
Posted by: is0butane on October 11, 2004 12:54 PM