One position per day…
During a 1997 debate on CNN’s “Crossfire,” Sen. John Kerry, now the Democratic presidential nominee, made the case for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq.
So reveals Rep. Peter King, New York Republican, who appeared with Mr. Kerry on the program.
Mr. King says the U.N. Security Council had just adopted a resolution against Iraq that was watered down at the behest of the French and the Russians. Yet the candidate who now criticizes President Bush for ignoring French and Russian objections to the Iraq war blasted the two countries, claiming that they were compromised by their business dealings with Baghdad.
“We know we can’t count on the French. We know we can’t count on the Russians,” said Mr. Kerry. “We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it’s in our national interest.”And then there’s this…
The war on Iraq was a mistake — war was unnecessary because the inspections were working: “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.”
I guess it could be argued Kerry really only has one position on Iraq… the one he thinks people want to hear.
Update: [Kevin] The Washington Times (Kerry out attack) misquoted Kerry.
Due to erroneous information from Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican, an item in the Inside the Beltway column in yesterday’s editions incorrectly quoted Sen. John Kerry in a 1997 appearance on CNN’s “Crossfire” as arguing for a unilateral, pre-emptive war against Iraq.
In reference to a U.N. Security Council resolution demanding access to Iraqi weapons sites, Mr. Kerry actually said: “I think that’s our great concern [-] where’s the backbone of Russia, where’s the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity [-] but in a sense, they’re now climbing into a box and they will have enormous difficulty not following up on this if there is not compliance by Iraq.”
Later, referring to French and Russian reservations on the use of force, Mr. Kerry said: “There’s absolutely no statement that they have made or that they will make that will prevent the United States of America and this president or any president from acting in what they believe are the best interests of our country.”By the way, that president was Clinton.
Paul has more on the spate of corrected MSM stories upon which Wizbang posts were based here.
The language of one who assumes he’s in.
Never assume anything.
Kerry’s just downright not likable.
Kerry dissed Allawi, he’s been dissing our coalition, and he’s basically dissing the military. Well, Allami doesn’t vote, coalition members don’t vote and he’s hoping his comrades will succeed in suppressing the vote. The man is a lunatic. If he didn’t have the MSM in the tank for him, the American people would shake their heads in disbelief over what he said, what he says and probably what he will say as election day draws closer. He’s apparently taking Susan Estrich’s advise: throw anything and everything against the wall and see what sticks.
Now you are using 1997 quotes to talk about Kerry’s Iraq policy? Have you seen all the pre-2002 quotes by Bush? In the debates against Gore he is vehemently against nation building.
– Kerry’s new best seller:
– “Wronging the Rights of the Iraqi War” –
…Victory through immediate withdrawal…
– available at a 7/11 near you…..
Yes, Bush was against nation building in countries in which we have no national security or geopolitical interests. He was responding to the Clinton penchant for sending our troops to Haiti to re-install a leftist, going into Kosovo, where we have no security interests and going into any country the UN feels we should send troops. Clinton loved putting our troops under the command of the United Nations.
Bush was clear about what he meant — clear to everyone except Liberals who seem to have plates in the heads.
Gee Bill I wonder what happened in between now and the debates with Gore that changed our world forever?
Kerry changes his position pretty much on a weekly basis, or whenever a new poll comes out.
Let
Question: Did Bush have anything to say about Iraq in 1997? If so, what?
I think the prez my have Kerry beat on Iraq positions. His administration is espousing two different view at the same time when it comes to the election. Does he suppport both opinions, or has he lost control of his cabinet?
“Let’s say you tried to have an election and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of Florida.
But in some places you couldn’t because the violent hurricanes are too great. Well, so be it. Nothing’s perfect in life, so you have an election that’s not quite perfect.
Is it better than not having an election? You bet.”
“We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it’s in our national interest.”
That is what he said in 1997, and that is what he is saying today. You are making Kerry’s argument for him. The point is what is in the national interest? The inspectors were in place and they were finding no WMDs. So if Saddam was not a threat, then how was it in the national interest to wage a full-blown war on the country?
R.G., you just keep saying it over and over, “Kerry is not a flip-flopper; Kerry is consistant. Kerry is not a flip-flopper; Kerry is consistant…”
Next, start saying, “Bush is a liar; Bush sucks… Bush is a liar; Bush sucks…” Keep saying it over and over again and maybe — just maybe — even you will believe it.
This quote wasn’t made.