|
Kerry gave the answer a few days ago, but indirectly. A president who stubbornly sticks to a particular course regardless of the situation is a moron.
Kerry pointed out that a good president doesnt stay the course when the course that they have taken has proven dead wrong.
Everything that is happening in Iraq is a good example. Would it be appropriate for the president to bankrupt the country if the point is reached where Iraq is simply proven to be a lost cause, the Iraqis in greater and greater numbers oppose our presence, and greater and greater numbers of American Soldiers die in Iraq.
In the mind of George W. Bush, staying the course whetther the course is one that is totally wrong, and een perhaps evl, is more of an indication of presidential abilities than a president who changes their stance on the issu as the situation demands
He was discussing going to war in Iraq, and the way the president went to war, based on getting support by giving false information.
all of Kerry's supposed flip flops are all events when he held a certain stance on an issue, or a piece of legislation, and then events regarding the issue changed, or there weew changes to the legislation at hand that then made the legislation acceptable to him.
But democrats as well as REpublican have created this problem for Kerry, by the treatment of his signning of the legislation that gave the president authority to use force in Iraq if eventually the situation called for it. There is a world of differnece between giving authority to use force if all other alternatives have failed and have been proven to have failed, and giving authorization to use force at the drop of a hat. The resolution passed clearly allowed use of force under described circumstances, and these required that certain things had to happen for force to be used. Many Democrats treated the act as a blank check and instant authorization. WHich it wasnt, but once both Democrats and Republicans created this impression, the media took off with it, and the impression that the act was instant authorization to go to war, gave Bush the wiggle room he needed to do so, and all criticism would be much less effective, as the beleive created in the public eye made the decisions made by people like Kerry and Edwards seem inconsistant, when in fact, they were giving the president authorization only if other methods failed.
Kerry opposed the immediate invasion of Iraq during the Gulf War, and wanted to give other methods a few more months to see if peaceful methods through the United Nations would be effective, as the las resolution that was passed in the U.N. had only been passed a few months earlier. Later, as the situation changed, Kerry's thoughts about how Saddam should be handled changed, as Hussein began violating every resolution he himself agreedf to at the end of the Gulf War,, as well as the Brutal actions he took against the groups that tried rebelling against Husseins regime after the Gulf War ended.
As the situation changes, one's opinions and ideas on how to deal with the situation must change.
Look at the Bush Administration. Regardless of all evidence that there was absolutely no connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, the Bush Administration continues to state, and even worse, behave as if a connection existed.
This belief itself is the justification for the War in Iraq, leaving the elements that were more dangerous to U.S. security still free to plan and perhaps act, while almost a quater of a trillion dollars has been spent going after Saddams regime, which posed no immediate threat to the U.S., if it posed any at all. The fact that we have a president who will not change course in the light of evidence, is to my mind, a far greater danger than one who does change their mind as it is necessary.
But democrats who allow the image that changing one's position if needed is somehow inappropriate have already given Bush all the ammunition he needs to turn necessary change into flip-flop, which is something Kerry has actually neve done. Kerry has changed his mind on legislation, but only after others have changed the legislation to the degree that came closer to meeting Kerry's own original position on the legislation
For example, all of the defense spending Kerry was supposed to have voted against only happened as a result of Kery opposing a lot of un-necessary pork in the original bills, but if that was removed, Kerry then voted for the systems.
Kerry in fact sets aa certain line regarding legislation, and is willling to be flexible, but will not change his stance on certain issues. particularly when it comes to allowing large corporations to raid the cookie jar for things totally unrelated to the programs that the legislation is related to.
This is pretty much the only way to clear Kerry of the "flip flop" accusations. However, this creates another problem for Kerry, as the American Public does not like long explanations for things, and wants everything explained in 25 words or less. As Kery said at the convention, there are just some things that cant be explained that simply.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
