They two statements do not contradict if you posit that John Kerry believes he does not have the judgment necessary to be president.

Man, sometimes you guys miss the most obvious answers.

Re: "Which is it Senator?"

John Kerry has proven that he is incapable of pandering to the voters. What we are seeing now are his true colors. I think he is now going to stay on message, and that message will unabashedly be rooted in 60s/70s radical liberalism. The whole flip-flop meme will probably be dead within a week or two and the electorate will see the clear-cut differences between Kerry and Bush (nothing new for most in the blogging world).

Of course, this is all good news for the Bush campaign. Bring it on Senator. Please, bring it on as loud and forceful as you can.

Not only did Kerry say that, he also said that he wouldn't have taken Saddam out of power. Tell that to his vote and rhetoric of the first part of the Democratic primaries before he went anti-war. Tell that to the signature that he put on a letter to President Clinton advocating the removal of Saddam Hussein in the 90s. Tell that to the rhetoric that Kerry used after he was the clear Democratic candidate. Tell that to the statement he issued on August 9, 2004 where he said he would have invaded Iraq knowing what we know now.

It just keeps getting stranger and stranger with Senator Kerry.

What a ridiculous comparison. Obviously he is not saying that getting rid of Sadaam is bad. You know it, I know it, Bush knows it, and anybody that votes should know it.

Congrats on just being ridiculous about it.

John Kerry is a joke -- a comedy act. If one doesn't believe that fact, just look at this: Bush and Kerry are both in my hometown NYC. Kerry is in town to appear on the Letterman Show; Bush is in town to address the UN General Assembly and to introduce the Iraqi Prime Minister. Bush the statesman and Commander-in-Chief; Kerry the TV clown.

Crikey! Bill K. might have a point, if we take the Boolean ANDs and ORs in Kerry's first statement and insert a couple appropriate parentheses.

Perhaps the decoder parser should be available on the Web for download so we can all know what the heck Kerry means with any certainty.

Right, so here's what Joe Lockhart said back: (not being a demotroll honest): "Once again, George Bush just can’t tell the truth about Iraq. John Kerry was talking about the difference between Saddam Hussein being free in Iraq to direct insurgency operations against our troops versus being captured. John Kerry made it clear today we can't change the reality of Iraq until we have a president who's willing to face the reality in Iraq.”

Which is of course, spin, since its obvious from reading the two statements that Kerry was pounding his primary opponents and now he's trying to pound Bush, so he's flip-flopped. But what I think is funny is that now Joe Lockhart is reminding the voters that Bush captured Saddam?

His big "Iraq" speech today just reminded everyone how dangerous the world is...all the more reason to vote for someone who shows clear leadership, not someone who's solution is to beg the UN on bended knee...

I can see it now, a helicopter on the roof of our Iraqi embassy taking home the last of our personnel with the poor Iraqis trying to catch the last ride to freedom...President Kerry tells the American people: 'This is a sad commentary on the ill conceived plans of former President Bush, but we need to think of ourselves and let the Iraqi people decide their own future. I mean how many people have to die for one man's mistake?'

Don't think it wont happen this way!

Stop holding Kerry to some sort of "standard", you pajama-wearing, Rove-employee!

RE: "Tell that to the signature that he put on a letter to President Clinton ..." by Chad Evans.

As far as the Dems are concerned, the only good war is a war started by a Democrat president. Also, based on Kerry's interview with Rolling Stones, I think it is safe to assume that Kerry only signed the letter because he felt that Clinton wouldn't actually go after Hussein.

RE: Remy Logan

I agree it's a double standard and you're probably right about Kerry's intent on signing the letter. The undeniable fact is of course that he signed it and even campaigned on this fact in 2002. I will try to find the Rolling Stones article and see what you are pointing to. Thanks for the heads up.

Are you guys too stupid to see a difference? Bush repeats the same lines over and over, so he is a 'consistent leader'. Kerry makes statements that are consistent, but uses different wording in an effort to actually explain something - not to just create soundbites. It must be tough when you are used to Bush spoon feeding you the simple rhetoric, but Kerry is making very good points and is addressing the problems, it just takes some thinking - with your head out of your ass. Try it sometime.

rg

it looks like u and kerry have something in common; the ability to say absolutely nothing verifed by common sense or facts. this ability must be extremely nuanced and complicated, coz both of u use a lot of multisyllabic words to come to absolutley no conclusion.

lets compare President Bush, and kerri, and the things they might say:

Bush concise statement - "it's raining"

kerri using "different wording in an effort to actually explain something" - "the presence of rain, depending on which voting block i am speaking to today, may or may not exist in relation tot he complexities of the existence of rain"

of course, kerri's response actually depends on the phase of the moon that week.

moonbat

rg

it looks like u and kerry have something in common; the ability to say absolutely nothing verifed by common sense or facts. this ability must be extremely nuanced and complicated, coz both of u use a lot of multisyllabic words to come to absolutley no conclusion.

lets compare President Bush, and kerri, and the things they might say:

Bush concise statement - "it's raining"

kerri using "different wording in an effort to actually explain something" - "the presence of rain, depending on which voting block i am speaking to today, may or may not exist in relation tot he complexities of the existence of rain"

of course, kerri's response actually depends on the phase of the moon that week.

moonbat

Yes, Mr. Kerry, explain it again, differently, with smaller words so we stupid plebes with our heads in our asses can understand why your nuanced position contradicts our understanding, through personal experience, of how human nature works.

Once more, with feeling, please.

If he contorts his position this badly with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, how will he make tough decisions as a leader when he doesn't have that advantage. Wars never go as planned if they did we would fight them more often, Kerry was supposed to bring his war experience to the platform but he only brought his anti-war experience so far and whole lot of political opportunism. I'm guessing the president of Iraq won't be meeting him to hear about he would have left Saddam in power.

I posted a new election ballot for florida on this in my latest cartoon www.stungbythewasp.com

read it if you like

Re: "Are you guys too stupid to see a difference?"

It is the job of the President, and all politicians, to communicate with their constituency. As constituents, it is not our job to try to figure out what the guy we voted for is saying. So far, Kerry hasn't been able to clearly articulate the same position on any topic for two days in a row a position on anyhing I find meaningful.

On Monday Kerry gave a speech specifically denouncing the Iraq War. A few hours later on the Letterman show he was back to his old waffling ways and could not plainly state what he thought about the war. Which was a redux of his Imus appearance on Friday.

Please RG, educate us poor plebians and inform us as to Kerry's policies concerning the following:

Illegal immigration - I don't recall him making any proposals concerning this problem.

Benedict Arnold CEOs - He has stopped talking about this issue all together, last I recall is he has mostly backtracked on taxing offshore profits of corporations. If he intends to pursue these corporations, how will he deal with NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO?

Embryonic Stem Cell Research - specifically which laws will he repeal that ban this research? (Hint: there aren't any Federal laws that ban stem cell research. None, zero, zip, nada. You'd think a lawyer and legislator would know that.)

Taxes - I make considerably less than $50k a year; Kerry's tax the rich proposals would increase my taxes. Please explain how I am rich and need to be taxed more.

Alternative Fuels - Wind power and solar energy have been in development for decades and still do not hold out any promise of having a significant impact on energy usage. What are Kerry's proposals for other avenues of research? Will Kerry support renewed research into nuclear power generation?

Kyoto - Kerry voted against the Kyoto protocols in the 1990s (a unanimous Sense of the Senate vote letting Clinton know that the Senate would not ratify the treaty). Has he changed his mind?

The 2nd ammendment - Kerry claims to support the rights of gun owners, but hasn't made clear what his intentions are about gun control. His recent complaints about the expiring of the Assault Weapons Ban were concerning issues that the Ban didn't even address -- machine guns and other automatic weapons have been illegal since the '30s and did not suddenly become legal when the Ban expired.

Our Allies - Kerry has said that he will be able to bring France, Germany, and Belgium onboard for assistance in Iraq and the WOT. These nations have already strongly said that they will not provide assistance in Iraq if Kerry is elected president. Right now Kerry is busy insulting our current allies (countries that can be bought on eBay, the coalition of the bribed, his sister's recent appearance in Australia), and has not made any specific comments about what he will bring to the bargaining table. What does he expect from them anyway: America saved Bosnia/Kosovo from annihilation after being disgusted with European inaction. The UN has done nothing more than send peacekeepers to watch millions be slaughtered in Africa in just the last 3 years alone. Add the millions more who were slaughtered in the 90s and it's difficult to see how working with the UN will save lives.

North Korea - Kerry is faulting Bush for inaction concerning NK nukes. Bush has been working with the NKs, China, Japan, and South Korea for the last 2 or 3 years through diplomatic channels. Is Kerry seriously considering a military assault on North Korea? Or Iran?

Yes, we do laugh about Kerry's flip-flopping. But that's because Kerry has ignored the issues and left us wtih nothing else to talk about. Let us know what Kerry is thinking so that we can make an informed choice.

That 12-minute RNC video keeps getting longer and longer...

so true, so true

Remy Logan

Excellent post.

RG, you may be right--but can you respond to that post? And also, PLEASE help me understand how he was being consistent.
thanks.