Not Even John Kerry’s Supporters Can Figure Out Where He Stands On The War In Iraq

This is just classic John Kerry….

“John Kerry yesterday said he now can see no reason why the United States went to war in Iraq, yet added that he still stands by his vote to authorize the war.

“Not under the current circumstances, no, there are none that I see,” the Democratic presidential nominee said when asked about the justification for the war by radio talk-show host Don Imus. “I voted based on weapons of mass destruction. The president distorted that, and I’ve said that.”

Mr. Kerry then said, however, that it was right to threaten Saddam Hussein in order to force him to comply with U.N. weapons-inspection demands and that the senator was “prepared to use the force.”

“I think it was the right vote based on what Saddam Hussein had done, and I think it was the right thing to do to hold him accountable,” he told Mr. Imus, saying his position “can’t be clearer.”

But Mr. Kerry’s answers left Mr. Imus, who frequently describes himself on air as a Kerry supporter, flummoxed.

“I asked him a number of questions about Iraq, and I can’t tell you what he said,” Mr. Imus said after Mr. Kerry hung up.”

Just trying to make sense of what Kerry said on Imus is almost impossible because he twisted himself into a rhetorical pretzel. But

John Kerry says he was right to vote to authorize the war and that Saddam had to be held accountable, but even though Saddam defied the world and wasn’t accountable, Bush was wrong to go to war.

What is he talking about?

Moreover, as per usual with Kerry, he’s directly contradicting other things he has said before. In this interview, Kerry said that his vote was all about the WMD and Bush distorted the issue.

“Not under the current circumstances, no, there are none that I see,” the Democratic presidential nominee said when asked about the justification for the war by radio talk-show host Don Imus. “I voted based on weapons of mass destruction. The president distorted that, and I’ve said that.”

But wait, how can John Kerry, who was a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee (although he often didn’t bother to show up) and was briefed by the CIA, accuse the President of distorting the danger of Saddam’s WMDs when Kerry was at least as adamant about the dangers of Saddam’s WMDs as the Bush administration, if not more so, before the war….

“The Iraqi regime’s record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and to expand it to include nuclear weapons. We cannot allow him to prevail in that quest. The weapons are an unacceptable threat.” — John Kerry, 10/9/02

“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America‚Äôs response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” — John Kerry, 1/23/03

“If you don’t believe … Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn’t vote for me.”USA Today on 2/13/03

Furthermore, Kerry is today saying that it’s all about the WMD. But back on 12/15/03 John Kerry was saying Iraq was critical to the “war on terror”…

“Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that…”

What has become plain is that John Kerry is willing to put political considerations above success in the war on terrorism. Today he says one thing, tomorrow he may say the exact opposite. It’s all about polls and misleading people about what he really believes, not about defeating terrorists, protecting America, or making sure that we succeed in Iraq.

How can John Kerry be trusted to fight the war on terrorism when his position is constantly shifting like a weathervane in a windstorm? Putting a weak reed like John Kerry in the White House while we’re still in the middle of the war on terrorism would lead to disaster…

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!

Send this to friend