Kerry Says He Wouldn't Have Ousted Saddam

[Andy_Stephenson]

NEW YORK - Staking out new ground on Iraq (news - web sites), Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) said Monday he would not have overthrown Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) had he been in the White House, and he accused President Bush (news - web sites) of "stubborn incompetence," dishonesty and colossal failures of judgment. Bush said Kerry was flip-flopping.

Less than two years after voting to give Bush authority to invade Iraq, the Democratic candidate said the president had misused that power by rushing to war without the backing of allies, a post-war plan or proper equipment for U.S. troops. "None of which I would have done," Kerry said.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040920/ap_on_el_pr/politics_of_iraq


:eyes: But But he said he would still have voted for the authority. WTF?

[Liberal Veteran]

1. How many times does this have to be explained to you?

He said he would vote for the authority in order to put some teeth into the inspections process.

It's so simple. Why don't you just acknowledge it?

[Roland99]

5. Write the Associated Press (AP) and tell them your thoughts!!

Email [e-mail] or [e-mail] and tell them to stop engaging in inflammatory tabloid journalism!!

[librechik]

14. waste of time--they did this deliberately n/t

[Sparkly]

19. Of course they did

and I always consider it worth the time to drop a note and let them know I know it.

[Roland99]

23. IT WORKED!! AP changed the Headline!!

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040921/D857O1083.html


Kerry Accuses Bush of Incompetence on Iraq

[librechik]

24. well roll me over and call me Spanky!

I never thought I's run into a media oriented issue where I could actually be too cynical!

Thanks AP!

[Sparkly]

18. Done

Absolutely OUTRAGEOUS.

[blm]

2. Authority to use force as a last resort. Having trouble understanding

that point still, I see.

Please continue doing everything within your power to unseat Bush.

[Julien Sorel]

3. Seriously.

But But he said he would still have voted for the authority. WTF?


How many times has this been gone over here? Between the primaries and now, I'm willing to bet cold hard cash that this topic has been discussed more than a thousand times. Yet someone who went though all that is still asking questions about it?

[21winner]

4. Hear the speech on Cspann @ 8pm EDT.

It will clear it all up.

[emulatorloo]

6. stop rollling your eyes and watch his speech on C-span or C-span.org

maybe it will finally sink in.

Until then, here is a preview:

<snip>

Two years ago, Congress was right to give the President the authority to use force to hold Saddam Hussein accountable.  This President… any President… would have needed the threat of force to act effectively.  This President misused that authority.

The power entrusted to the President gave him a strong hand to play in the international community.  The idea was simple.  We would get the weapons inspectors back in to verify whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.  And we would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam: disarm or be disarmed. 


A month before the war, President Bush told the nation:  “If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible.  We will plan carefully.  We will act with the full power of the United States military.  We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail.”  He said that military action wasn’t “unavoidable.” 


Instead, the President rushed to war without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work.  He went without a broad and deep coalition of allies.   He acted without making sure our troops had enough body armor.  And he plunged ahead without understanding or preparing for the consequences of the post-war. None of which I would have done.


Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way.  How can he possibly be serious?  Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq?  My answer is no – because a Commander-in-Chief’s first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe.

<snip>

More at http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0920.html

[Arkana]

7. Um...

I read the speech, and nowhere did I see Kerry say that he wouldn't have ousted Saddam Hussein. All he said was by ousting Saddam, we have thrown Iraq into chaos and made America less safe.

Did I miss something? :shrug:

[HootieMcBoob]

9. no you didn't miss anything

whoever the lunkhead is that's writing for the ap missed something - intentionally i'm guessing. write the knucklehead and let him/her know.

[incapsulated]

8. This is what Kerry said ie "ousting Saddam":

He made a distinction between that vote to grant a president war-making authority and what he himself would have done as commander in chief with such power.


"Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious?" Bush's presidential rival said at New York University.


"Is he really saying to Americans that if we had known there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to al-Qaida, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is resoundingly no because a commander in chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe."


Anyway, it's such a bullshit headline!! :mad: Fucking AP! Rate it down!

[They_LIHOP]

11. The AP are Bushwhores...

They have been seriously infiltrated by GOP operatives, that much is obvious. The AP has taken to constructing all their stories in a similar manner. The bias is done in a way that is subtle enough that when we Dems get 'up in arms' about it, a fairly reasonable person could still look at any ONE instance of this type of reporting and come to the conclusion that we're just 'paranoid'. You have to see this same tactic over and over again (as we have) to detect the bias.

I can tell you, though, this bias IS REAL. I've been watching the AP for a long time now, and I've been pissed about this FOREVER. Someone needs to compile a dossier on this subject. I bet the case could be made that the "AP only presents the GOP-spin version of every story" pretty convincingly at this point, assuming you get the reader to agree that certain writing/reporting 'tactics' can be considered 'bias', even if they've never 'thought of them that way, per se...

[incapsulated]

12. Believe me...

I've hated AP with a passion since the primaries. Don't get me started...

Once in a while they do something "unbiased" so their whoring isn't blatantly obvious to the casual reader, but they don't fool me.

[K. F. Gibbons]

10. I've always thought it, never had the guts to say it. I never thought Iraq

had WMD and never had the guts to say it.

Kerry's Speech completely changes the debate. This is good.

The core question is did we need to do this.

[librechik]

13. KERRY DID NOT SAY THAT!!!

he said he would have allowed the inspections to continue to their conclusion, and then if there was a problem he would have gone through international procedures to have Saddam removed legally, not in the obviously illegal manner Bush preferred. It could have been done, and over a thousand US soldiers would still be alive. But it WOULDN'T have happened, because the inspectors would have discovered A) no WMD and B) no threat to US!!

So maybe Saddam would still be there, being nasty but sanctioned, and holding the muslim fanatics at bay. But not necessarily.

AMERICA!! Which would you rather have? Saddam still in charge on the other side of the world, or your sons and daughters back home and alive!

Please, yahoo

[Bush was AWOL]

15. Nice headline by Yahoo! Not!

What a misleading and rediculous title! I listened to the entire speech and he said no such thing. That is the headline that will be in lots of major papers tomorrow.

[Tracer]

16. When you come right down to it ...

... really, how horrible would it be if Hussein was still in power in Iraq?

Not very, in my opinion.

This tinpot dictator has been elevated to the very Satan himself over the past few years and NOBODY questions it. Moreover, since Hussein now equals Satan +Hitler+Boogeyman, the mere suggestion that Iraq would be better off if he WAS still in power quickly allows one to be called a crazy, left-wing traitor.

Reasonable minds do not prevail.

[JohnnyCougar]

17. This Headline is mesleading!!! I don't think this is good for business!!

Tell the AP...change it by tomorrow, or else!!!!

[e-mail]

[WiseMen]

20. AGREE! Missrepresentation of Kerry as usual.

Kerry has supported regime change in Iraq from the late '90s.

Kerry has repeatedly said he would not have rushed to war based
on the information available.

There are ways of regime change other than invasion and occupation.

[Kathleen04]

22. I definately think the headline is misleading

The way they've written it sounds like Kerry would have wanted Saddam to stay in power, which is absolutely false and when you read the article Kerry says nothing to that effect. He simply states that Saddam Hussein being a brutal dictator was not reason enough for us to go to war and it wasn't the original reason Bush gave us for going to war. Enough said.

I rated the story a 1 because I think the headline is so misleading. When I first read it, my thoughts were that Kerry has screwed himself big time..but I see that's not the case when I read the full article..which most people don't necessarily do when they see the article on their yahoo homepage. x(

On edit: When you actually click the article, the headline changes to "Kerry Accuses Bush of Incompetance on Iraq"..that should be the friggin' headline! That's some sneaky bs they're trying to pull.

[JohnnyCougar]

26. Have you all e-mailed AP??

[Roland99]

27. YES! AP changed the headline

Look at my post up above!

[LittleClarkie]

28. Now email Yahoo and get them to change their headline

to the new one

[LittleClarkie]

29. Nevermind

On the old link it's not changed, but if you go over there right now to Yahoo, it is.

Cool beanz.

[LittleClarkie]

21. Kerry would vote again to give the POWER to go to war IF NECESSARY

so that Bush would have the muscle in the international community to make Hussain let the inspectors do their job, and to make Hussain disarm if the inspectors actually found anything.

Bush said he would not go to war unless it was the last resort. Bush promised, if he went to war, that would "take every precaution that is possible." He promised to "plan carefully." He promised to "act with the full power of the US military." He promised to "act with allies at our side." He promised "to prevail." Silly Kerry, he took Bush at his word.

Bush didn't do anything he said he was going to do FIRST. He didn't use war as a last resort. And when he did go into Iraq, he didn't do it in the way he said he would. It was not planned carefully. It was not done with the full power of the military. It was not done with our allies by our side, except in a token fashion. And he has not prevailed.

Kerry knows that Hussein was a bad man, and needed to be stopped. But he would have used force as a last resort. He would have worked throught the non-violent channels first, with the power to go to war backing him up.

Having the power doesn't mean you have to use it. It's like being a karate expert. If people know you are a karate expert, it means you DON'T have to fight as much, not that you do. You have the power backing you up so that you WON'T have to use it on a nation that is smart enough to know it is outgunned.

He just wouldn't have done what Bush did. Not in that order. Not in that way. He would have done it right or not at all.

Kerry would have done several things first before even going after Hussein. He would've finished in Afganistan. He would've made our borders more secure. He would've made our ports more secure. He would've used the National Guard to GUARD the NATION (what a concept.)

And in that last resort, if he'd have gone to war with Hussein, he would've done all the things that the president promised to do and didn't, plus having an exit strategy.

See the link in my sig. It spells out Kerry's stance very succinctly. Kerry is being as honest with the nation as he can be. Perhaps that is his fault. He tries to tell the nation too much at once so they will see his thought process. To cough up simplicities seems dishonest to him. Somehow the conservative pundits keep saying they want details, and yet a simple message. He can't give both.

(reprint from the "General Discussion" thread that is alot like this one.)

[secular_warrior]

25. John Kerry voted for a PROCESS where war would be the LAST resort.

President Bush made a mockery of that process and MISLED us into Iraq without a plan.