By YESnut
10/11/04
“I have had one position! One consistent position!” – John Kerry, 2004
Imagine going through life with uncertainty as to what you believe in. Or worse, having a commitment to an idea one day and then apparently a commitment to the opposite idea the next. This is John Kerry. Let's try to sort it out.
Kerry is proud of his volunteerism into the armed forces and service in Vietnam, as anyone should be. He has made this a focal point of his campaign, hoping for a political crutch to demonstrate macho ruggedness in this time of war. Yet of course we all know Kerry came home from Vietnam to launch his more passionate career as a protester. So which personality are we to believe, the tough Commander in Chief, or the chief protester?
It must be confusing for voters to know that Kerry, like Jane Fonda, viewed the American government as the "real enemy", the same government and military he hopes to now lead. This is just one example of Kerry's inconsistent convictions.
It was during his protesting years Kerry declared the United States should, essentially, turn over its foreign policy to the much wiser United Nations. Of course, Kerry now claims that was just youthful vigor and ignorance and that he would never forfeit the right for unilateral force - "Never", as he now unconvincingly exclaims, just after explaining that Bush failed to build an international coalition. One wonders, does Kerry want to be the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, or diffuse that power by yielding to the UN as some sort of check and balance?
John Kerry's multiple convictions on Iraq are nothing short of bizarre, yet were foreshadowed by his reaction to the first Iraq war.
Try to resolve this - Saddam Hussein's military brutally invades Kuwait, wildly killing woman and children along the way, which prompts President Bush to orchestrate an amazing international coalition. Kerry's dream team, the United Nations, makes clear-cut demands upon Saddam Hussein and declares the hostile invasion unacceptable. Congress overwhelmingly gives authority to Bush for war. John Kerry voted "no".
If it were up to Kerry, Saddam Hussein would still own Kuwait.
What global test did the first Iraq war not pass? Nobody knows for sure but he later said, "From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis..." That's right, Kerry voted against the war, but later "unequivocally" supported it.
By now you've heard much of Kerry's confusion regarding the recent war. It's funny to a point, except when you consider that this number one protester might now be elevated to the number one commander in chief. Here's a snapshot of Kerry's mind, but remember, it's literally impossible to sort out - so don't blame me for the incoherence.
Kerry voted to give authority to Bush for invasion (it apparently now passes his global test that the first war didn't) but later said it was the "wrong war at the wrong time". He oddly also says that he would still have given the President the authority, "because it's the right authority to have", apparently just for the sake of "threatening" the use of force.
He appeared on numerous television shows declaring that the US should remove Saddam Hussein, even if we are "going alone". "I agree completely with this administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq." But he later said he was the anti-war candidate and that he preferred a greater use of diplomacy.
John Kerry now says it's the wrong war because it has nothing to do with the war on terrorism, that Al Qaeda is the real war. “Iraq was not even close to the center of the war on terror.” Oh by the way, he previously said "Iraq... is critical to the outcome of the war on terror."
Reviewing Kerry’s schizo moments can be an art in and of itself. Of course, liberals might say I’m just not sophisticated enough understand his French-like intellectual nuance - I voted for the war, but I’m the anti-war candidate. Bush rushed to war, but America has the right for unilateral action. I support regime change, but the President has made a colossal error. America has the right for unilateral action, but the UN process should be allowed to work. Saddam Hussein wanted to get nuclear weapons, but Bush is exaggerating the threat. Bush outsourced our military, but we didn’t build a strong enough coalition. Bush didn’t arm the troops, but I voted against funding the war, after I voted for it.
It’s three weeks before the election and it looks like the flip-flopper may have distilled some of his positions to a couple of digestible themes. He now says something like, “I agree with the president to go to war, but I would have had a plan for the peace. I could have done it better”, or something.
Kerry’s inner-conflicts can be seen in other issues. He’s a Catholic and opposed to abortion, but says he wouldn’t dare impose his morality on Americans. Therefore he’s pro-choice. Yet he also says he morally supports pumping federal dollars into human embryo stem-cell research. That is, he has no problem imposing this moral judgment upon me, an anti-abortion voter. (Abortion lovers will see no conflict here since human embryos can be used for home decoration, for all they care.)
I guess it takes more nuance to know when a president should stand by his personal moral beliefs, or just let them go.
John Kerry voted for No Child Left Behind, but now says the President broke a spending promise and ruined it - even though it has rolled out exactly as written and Bush has increased federal education spending by 58%.
John Kerry claims to not be a tax-and-spend liberal, but voted against the Bush tax cut and criticizes it daily. He also criticized Howard Dean for his plan to repeal it. But now he plans on keeping the Bush tax cut so he can campaign using the phrase, “tax cuts for the middle class”. The difference? He promises he will raise taxes, but just not on you and me. We’re safe. He’s going to stick it to the rich since they apparently don’t pay enough and we need the money. Once again, he’s flexing his nuanced moral judgment.
John Kerry has criticized the President for outsourcing American jobs, yet feels Halliburton (the only American company suited to do the war work) should have competed against French, German, and Russian companies for war contracts. He has criticized the President for not internationalizing the Iraqi reconstruction. That is, after countries shunned the US by not giving military support, John Kerry feels they should be awarded the benefits of big dollar contracts.
Oh I know, I’m just not sophisticated enough to understand the nuances of John Kerry’s genius, and I’m probably taking these quotes out of context. Surely one man couldn’t be so confused yet so clearly articulate. Oops! Here I go, flip-flopping again…