Thursday, September 30, 2004

I need someone to explain this to me
Kerry says it was the "Wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time."

In the next sentence he says "I did vote for the authorization because I did think Saddam was a threat. I accepted the intelligence at the time, and thought we needed to go to war."

How does that logic work out?

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

In answer to your question, my take is to read the words carefully. Your statement is that
"Kerry says it was the 'wrong war,...(etc.)" In the second quote, he does say "I ACCEPTED the intelligence AT THE TIME, and THOUGHT we NEEDED to go to war (emphasis mine)". Those are all past-tense forms, in case you hadn't noticed. To me, it logically follows to conclude that he had a different perception of the whole thing when he voted for it than he has now. How is this particularly illogical...? I'm glad to know he can admit that he made a mistake, unlike someone else we all hear from regularly! ;-)

RFTR said...

But the problem is, you can't criticize a president for making a decision that you agreed with at the time. That's a cheap shot that you're not qualified to take.

Christina Ocasio said...

I remember the quote a little different. I do not think he ever actually said that he thought we needed to go to war. I recall him stating that he thought that President need the authority for diplomatic reasons. To force Sadam's hand. I could not find the quote you have here in the transcript currently on www.foxnews.com

I do not think that Kerry has ever said that we needed to go to war.

Tanstaafl said...

You're right, I don't think he said we needed to go to war. I think he said we needed the authorization in order to effectively execute a diplomatic strategy forcing Saddam to comply with the UN resolutions. But Saddam wasn't complying, and so unfortunately, we now know that Senator Kerry is willing to threaten war (by authorizing it in this case) even if he's not really willing to make good on his threat. That's pretty dangerous because it means that while he may have more credibility with some European leaders, he won't have much credibilty with our enemies. In the future if he threatens war, will anyone take that threat seriously?