Kerry Flip-Flop

I NEVER watch television and so I never see any ads from either candidate. How does Kerry counter bush's flip flop criticism? I mean it seems easy to say that he initially supported the war based on intelligence...then after the WMD were not found, he considered the intelligence flawed and that he no longer supports it. That makes perfect sense to me and it should not count as a flip flop although i would have been more impressed if he rejected the phony war from the get go.

He is accused of flip flopping on his support for the Patriot Act. This is a really sneaky one. It was passed very quickly without much debate so a lot of very flawed legislation slipped through congress and many members of congress regret this act (Even many republicans who voted for it!!). This should not count as a flip flop.

What else is he accused of flip flopping on? Are they easy to counter like the above two?

"I voted for the 87 billion, before I voted against it."

They act like someone cannot have a change of opinion, after more facts present themselves. That is the reason we are in the mess that we are in today. We have stubborn leaders, like Shrub. Stubborn, administrations, like this one's. Who all have a nonchalant attitude about the service people fighting this "War on Terror"!

because
a) Kerry wanted to only loan the money and repay it back to America through a loan from Iraq's oil, once reconstructed.
b) lack of accountability over where this $87 billion would go once given to the Bush administration to do with as they please.

He voted for a previous incarnation of the bill that was shut down by Republicans.

Is that a hannity quote? I thought bush must have been the one repeating it.

I don't listen to WAHR either - W AssHole Radio.

tell ya what - Mr. Kerry could "flip-flop" on EVERY ISSUE and I would STILL vote for him over that incompetent piece of SHIT pretending to be "president".

the Republicans accuse of "flip flopping." It's a term which is easy to remember for the Fox-listening, newspaper-shunning, large word-fearing, short attention span Republicans who can't handle complexity.

It just seems that others post constantly about it on other forums and these posters are not seeing tyhe huge flaws in their arguments - namely that opinions do change as more facts present themselves.

I can explain to some war supporter about the supposed flip flop that Kerry made and tell him that he changed his mind after the facts came that all the pre-war intelligence was flawed (should have been obvious even during the pre-war days!) - this usually does not even strike a chord with the adamant war supporters - they just say, "but he is a flip flopper." I then proceed to roll me eyes and give up.

instead of defending a LIE about Kerry.

When you see thread titles like this :

Kerry had sex with dead woman, has anybody heard about this?
Kerry's grandfather was Count Dracula, anybody got info on this?
Kerry reported to support taxes on 3 year old kids, is this true?
Kerry's Mom was really his Grandma, can someone verify this?

I'd say do a search on the thread starter and you most likely will see a post pattern that will make you go hummmmmmm.

Flip flop? Who cares about flip flopping when you compare it to lying us into a war and torture. Bring on the flip flopper.

I would vote for Peewee Herman at this point!

it never hurts to try :eyes:

And THAT was the perfect response! :thumbsup:

-chef-

Kerry, unlike the ideological ridgid RW, is quite capable of changing his mind over time, as the reality of situations change. Would you want a person who has a single position, irregardless of the change in events? I wouldn't. It's called flexibility.

That said, check out the 2000 Republican platform and compare that to Bush's actual record. Bush has pulled every plank out of the platform and burned it.....

Add to that the number of times Bushco has flip-flopped on the reasons for invading Iraq.
I would much prefer someone who 'flip-flops' based on a change in their beliefs to someone who 'flip-flops' based on how much bullshit he can/can't make others believe.

-chef-

their position as more facts come out. That sounds like common sense.

My main complaints about Bush are (and there are many others too):

1) Christian Taliban/Faith based BS
2) The war (from the start)
3) his insane colossal budget fiasco
4) the "Patriot" Act - for amusement see this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x1147790#1147790

These are the main reasons I will never vote for bush, so Keruu has my vote.

Bills may start out being what a particular legislator wants, but then ammendments are offered which can change the character of a bill. Lets take a hypothetical situation:

A bill is offered which promises more money for some good government program, the legislator votes for that because he believes the bill is a good idea.

Then the bill makes its way through both houses of congress and various amendments are offered one of which is lets say, a provision that gives massive taxcuts to rich people, when the bill comes around again after making it through conference committee and is ready for a final vote, the senator votes against it because the character of the bill has changed.

This is totally consistant with the legislator's beliefs and is not a "flip flop."

That is a good answer.

I feel like I am being attacked here and I hate Bush as much as anyone. I absolutely believe Bush to be a lying murdering bastard and you can be sure I am voting against him.

amd simply counter each lie with a TRUTH about bush.

a lot of people eventually believe lies if they hear it enough.
It is easy to bash bush as well, but it also seems easy enough for Kerry to say, "Yes, I changed my stance on the war because bush lied to me!" Would it be too incendiary for Kerry to call bush out like that?

You decide. Flip-flop or a consistent call for intelligent policy?
--------------

Here is what Kerry said on the Senate floor, the day he voted for the war resolution (Oct. 2002):

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs. (1)

Then, in January of 2003:

The debate over how the United States should conduct itself in the world is not new. After all, what is today's unilateralism but the right's old isolationist impulse in modern guise? At its core is a familiar and beguiling illusion: that America can escape an entangling world...that we can wield our enormous power without incurring obligations to others...and that we can pursue our national interests in arrogant ways that make a mockery of our nation's ideals. I am here today to reject the narrow vision of those who would build walls to keep the world out, or who would prefer to strike out on our own instead of forging coalitions and step by step creating a new world of law and mutual security. I believe the Bush Administration's blustering unilateralism is wrong, and even dangerous, for our country. In practice, it has meant alienating our long-time friends and allies, alarming potential foes and spreading anti-Americanism around the world. Too often they've forgotten that energetic global leadership is a strategic imperative for America, not a favor we do for other countries. Leading the world's most advanced democracies isn't mushy multilateralism -- it amplifies America's voice and extends our reach. Working through global institutions doesn't tie our hands -- it invests US aims with greater legitimacy and dampens the fear and resentment that our preponderant power sometimes inspires in others. In a world growing more, not less interdependent, unilateralism is a formula for isolation and shrinking influence. As much as some in the White House may desire it, America can't opt out of a networked world. We can do better than we are doing today. And those who seek to lead have a duty to offer a clear vision of how we make Americans safer and make America more trusted and respected in the world.

<snip>

The Bush Administration has a plan for waging war but no plan for winning the peace. It has invested mightily in the tools of destruction but meagerly in the tools of peaceful construction. It offers the peoples in the greater Middle East retribution and war but little hope for liberty and prosperity.

What America needs today is a smarter, more comprehensive and far-sighted strategy for modernizing the greater Middle East. It should draw on all of our nation's strengths: military might, the world's largest economy, the immense moral prestige of freedom and democracy - and our powerful alliances.

<snip>

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war. (2)

1) http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

2) http://kerry.senate.gov/text/cfm/record.cfm?id=189831

See folks, this is the kind of response I was looking for!!

... so Bush's rock-solid leadership looks somehow honorable by comparison.

The GOP is trying to make any position more complicated than "we must win" seem like the thoughts of wimps and cowards. In the long run, I'm just not sure it will work.

right here.

Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.

Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.

Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.

Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.

Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.

Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.

Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.

Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.

Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.

Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.

Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits

Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.

Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.

Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.

Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will

Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have.

Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote

Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team.

Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.

-Click the link and empower yourself.-

Kerry stated that he supported funding the 87 billion with either a loan or by rolling back tax givemes. He makes that clear in the sentence before the comment about voting against the 87 billion. They leave out the first sentence when smearing Kerry based on this (anybody got a link to the full statement by Kerry?).

Bush said he would veto the funding if it was a loan or rolled back tax givemes to the rich. Using the same logic that the Republicans are using against Kerry, Bush was against funding our soldiers. Some Repubs even supported making the funding a loan.

Also, the money was not an emergency appropriation, the soldiers would have still had funding for several months if the measure did not pass. There was still plenty of time to revamp the measure if it didn't pass.

Finally, the number of votes for the measure was obvious right before it's passage and since Kerry wrote the amendment providing for funding the war by rolling back Bush tax gimmies, Kerry voted against the funding in protest. If enough had voted against it and made the vote close or defeated the bill, then Bush would have been forced to consider either rolling back tax givemes or loans.

to call Kerry a flip-flopper based on this. This kind of thing happens all the time where a politician approves of a bill and then a bad amendment causes him to disapprove - very common.

I think what we need is a good debate. That should settle it. There are so many in-your-face comments that Kerry can make to bush.

That is........if bush would accept a debate.