I thought John Kerry was advised by Clinton to stick to the economy and domestic policy? The AP reports: "Democrat John Kerry accused President Bush on Monday of sending U.S. troops to the ’wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time’ and said he’d try to bring them all home in four years. Bush rebuked him for taking ’yet another new position’ on the war." Bush: "After voting for the war, but against funding it, after saying he would have voted for the war even knowing everything we know today, my opponent woke up this morning with new campaign advisers and yet another new position."
Finally Kerry has got it right! He still has my vote.
The last I heard he was in favor of the war, but he thought it was executed poorly. I don’t know what the hell the guy believes. And, that’s not a partisan critique. I really wish he had a coherent, logical position that was clear to everyone and allowed the voters to make up their minds based upon similar or different principles. In 2004, three years after September 11th, it is important to have a clear vision about warfare and the employment of American armed forces.
I am wondering how many Democrats are kicking themselves and saying "Damn, we should have stuck with Dean. And if not Dean, well, Gephart or Lieberman, or Kucinich, or the Reverend. Someone, anyone..."
Instead of A-B-B, I think the Dems, in hindsigth are thinking A-B-K.
Paul
Finally Kerry has got it right! He still has my vote.
That is really funny.
I am a Republican that voted for Dean and am kicking all those who didn’t. He would have made this election about foriegn policy and Bush surely would have lost.
And, it is funny that I am glad that Kerry finally stumbled upon a good standing!! Or is it funny because Kerry is so terrible but still better than Bush?
Joe, do you really think that Kerry has "stumbled upon a good standing (position?)" on Iraq? He simply cannot be pinned down on his position, and it will certainly change depending on circumstances in Iraq or American polling numbers (or European poll numbers for that matter). I agree that a consistent position would have shown more character, been more easily defensible, and more formidable in the election. I’m just thankful that his position has been none of these things.
I will like to add another comment about statesmanship. I am glad that Churchill did not "stumble onto a position" that Hitler and the Nazis needed to be dealt with, not compromised with. I’m glad Reagan did not "stumble onto the position" that Russia was an evil empire. And, I’m glad that George Bush did not "stumble onto the position" that 9/11 would not stand and that terrorists were evil and needed to be hunted down and killed, not understood, hugged, paid off, and capitulated to. That’s called character, vision, and statesmanship. And, that’s why Zell Miller supports Bush, and that’s why Jimmy Carter is attacking both of them.
Joe, it is funny because in a couple of days John Kerry will stumble to another position. It is funny because this guy will say anything and has said anything.
Joe, this is why it is funny:
The Note reports: "In his speech, Kerry is expected to try to finally and once and for all clarify his position on the war in Iraq, and to put President Bush on the defensive for how he’s conducted the war in Iraq. ’The reason Iraq is an issue in this campaign is NOT over the question of whether it was right to hold Saddam accountable. The reason it is an issue is because of the way George Bush went to war, making the wrong choices and weakening the United States here at home and overseas,’ reads a campaign memo to reporters."
It is from ABC’s The Note.
Obviously, John Kerry thinks he’s a better politician than Bill Clinton. And just as obviously, Kerry is wrong.