PDA

View Full Version : Is Kerry A Flip Flopper?


Overdose
06-08-2004, 07:21 PM
HANNITY'S LIES ABOUT KERRY, DEBUNKED
About a week ago on Hannity & Colmes, Sean Hannity spewed a litany of lies about John Kerry being a flip-flopper and tax raiser, lies that came directly from the Bush campaign. Oddly, Alan Colmes did not respond. So we will. Hannity said:

Here’s a guy that supported gay marriage, now against it. Here’s a guy that by my count has had six separate different unique positions on the war on Iraq. Here’s a guy that voted for the $87 billion to fund the war before he voted against it. Here’s a guy that was for the Patriot Act. Now against it. No Child Left Behind, for it, now against it. Here’s a guy that supported -- was against the death penalty for terrorists who kill Americans. Now he’s for it. The only thing he seems consistent on is that, throughout the 19 years he was in the Senate, he voted to raise taxes consistently 350 times. What does that tell us about a man that has no core values or principles?

Let’s take these one at a time.

Here’s a guy that supported gay marriage, now against it.

This is a lie. Kerry’s position has always been consistent on this. I disagree with him, but Kerry has always been against gay marriage. He is for civil unions. What Hannity is doing here is taking Kerry’s vote against the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and deliberately misrepresenting it as a declaration in favor of gay marriage. But let me read you what Kerry said on the floor of the Senate about that vote.

“I will vote against this bill, though I am not for same-sex marriage, because I believe that this debate is fundamentally ugly, and it is fundamentally political, and it is fundamentally flawed….the results of this bill will not be to preserve anything, but will serve to attack a group of people out of various motives and rationales, and certainly out of a lack of understanding and a lack of tolerance, and will only serve the purposes of the political season.”

And on that, I totally agree with him. So, for the record: Kerry has been totally consistent on this. He has never flip-flopped. Sean Hannity is lying, and he knows it.

Next.

Here’s a guy that by my count has had six separate different unique positions on the war on Iraq.

Okay. This is just stupid. Kerry’s position on Iraq has been totally consistent. Yes, he voted to authorize the president to use force against Iraq. But voted for that in order for Bush to go to the UN and get the inspectors back into Iraq, which was a genuine triumph. But, the president acted in bad faith. Here is what Kerry said about it on Face the Nation on September 14, 2003:

“The president promised he would go to war as a matter of last resort. He didn’t. The president promised he would build a coalition and work through the United Nations. He didn’t. We’re paying the price for the reckless way in which this president approached this. It’s a failure of diplomacy, and today it’s a failure of leadership.”

Kerry was entirely consistent, and not only that, he was right.

Next.

Here’s a guy that voted for the $87 billion to fund the war before he voted against it.

This is correct, but it’s not a flip-flop. Kerry voted for an amendment to the Iraqi appropriations bill that would have paid for the $87 billion by taking it out of the tax cut for the extremely rich. That amendment lost, 57-42, because Bush insisted that the $87 billion be added to the deficit. As we discussed with Paul Krugman last week, never in the history of this country have we had tax cuts while we were at war. Not only that, but Paul Krugman told me that he has yet to find any civilization in the history of this planet that ever had a tax cut during a war.

After the amendment went down, Kerry did vote against the final $87 billion supplemental appropriation, as a protest against the way Bush got us into the war and is conducting it. But he knew that the troops would have the support, because the bill passed 87 to 12.

You can support our troops, and still protest the president. If you can’t hold those two ideas in your head, you won’t enjoy my show, and I suggest you switch over to Rush right now.

Next.

Here’s a guy that was for the Patriot Act. Now against it.

Well, here’s what Kerry said:

“I voted for the Patriot Act right after September 11th – convinced that – with a sunset clause – it was the right decision to make. It clearly wasn’t a perfect bill – and it had a number of flaws – but this wasn’t the time to haggle. It was the time to act.

"But George Bush and John Ashcroft abused the spirit of national action after the terrorist attacks. They have used the Patriot Act in ways that were never intended and for reasons that have nothing to do with terrorism. That’s why, as President, I will propose new anti-terrorism laws that advance the War on Terror while ending the assault on our basic rights.”

In other words, he voted for the Patriot Act after 9/11, although he objected to parts of it. Bush has abused it in ways that were never intended by Congress when it was passed. If you can’t hold that in your head, you will love Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

No Child Left Behind, for it, now against it.

This is an easy one. On this one, like all the others, Kerry’s position is consistent, and principled, and Hannity’s is dishonest. Kerry voted for the bill, which the president promised to fund. The president didn’t fund it, which created unfunded mandates on states and school districts across this country. As a result, classroom sizes are getting bigger, after-school programs are being dropped, teachers are being fired, and education is getting worse. Everyone in education across this country will tell you that. No Child Left Behind is the most ironically named piece of legislation since the 1942 Japanese Family Leave Act.

Next.

Here’s a guy that supported -- was against the death penalty for terrorists who kill Americans. Now he’s for it.

Actually, Sean’s right on this one. Kerry was against the death penalty before 9/11. And after 9/11, he now supports the death penalty for terrorists. Now, Bush—before 9/11, wanted to invade Iraq. And after it, wanted to invade Iraq. So maybe he was more consistent. Kerry was affected viscerally by 9/11. I’m not sure I’d call that a flip-flop.

Next.

The only thing he seems consistent on is that, throughout the 19 years he was in the Senate, he voted to raise taxes consistently 350 times.

This is a disgraceful lie. It is a distortion of a phony statistic put out by the Bush campaign. The Bush campaign lists 350 of Kerry’s votes for, quote, “higher taxes.” Almost all of these are votes Kerry cast to leave taxes unchanged, such as a 1987 vote against a repeal of the “windfall profit” tax on oil. Taxes would have remained the same if his side had prevailed. In other words, this was a vote against an irresponsible tax cut for the rich.

Let me make a side note. We need to pay for the government. Someone’s got to pay for it. And if you cut taxes for the rich, the burden gets shifted to everyone else, or their children.

Bush’s list even includes votes that Kerry cast in favor of alternative Democratic tax cuts. On Bush’s list, there’s only one actual tax increase that Kerry voted for, which incidentally is counted twice. It’s his vote for Clinton’s 1993 Deficit Reduction Act, which raised taxes on the top 1% and cut taxes on people at the bottom, and was followed by eight years of unprecedented growth.

What does that tell us about a man that has no core values or principles?

The man who has no core values or principles here is a man named Sean Hannity. And you know who came up with all these lies? The campaign of a man named George W. Bush.

Look. The reason I took the time to go over all of this is you’re going to hear this garbage repeated over, and over, and over again from now until November. And we are not going to let them do it. We are not going to let them do to John Kerry what they did to Al Gore.

Kerry is not a flip-flopper. But Bush is a liar. And his shills in the media, like Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh—they’re liars too.

http://www.airamericaradio.com/bin/blogEntry.cfm?actionId=blogShowEntry&entryId=15

The Republican
06-08-2004, 09:38 PM
John Kerry’s Position on Iraq

Al Franken would like you to believe that John Kerry has been consistent.
Kerry’s position on Iraq has been totally consistent.
However a closer analysis clearly shows that John Kerry has waffled on something a simple as supporting the American troops on the ground in a battlefield during wartime. In the first Democratic debate in Columbia, South Carolina Kerry said…
“I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.”
Then a couple of months later Kerry changed his tune to “threaten” Saddam Hussein…
“I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations.”
Finally, Kerry has come to the conclusion that he is no longer supportive of this war in an attempt to appeal to the anti-war crowd that is supporting Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich. Using the quote Franken used…
“The president promised he would go to war as a matter of last resort. He didn’t. The president promised he would build a coalition and work through the United Nations. He didn’t. We’re paying the price for the reckless way in which this president approached this. It’s a failure of diplomacy, and today it’s a failure of leadership.”
…you can see Kerry’s own lies in front of you. War with Iraq was used as a last resort. After 13 years of sanctions and inspections that proved futile the only last thing to do was actually enforce the resolutions, specifically 1441 that called for the use of force. Did John Kerry expect another 13 years of the same before enforcing another resolution? Furthermore Bush has built a coalition of countries and did work to get a final resolution authorizing force if Iraq did not disarm. Finally it was Kerry that showed poor leadership by voting to not fund our troops and give them the equipment they needed which leads me to the next topic.

Kerry voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it.

This is pretty easy. By voting for the amendment Kerry wanted to harm the fragile and recovering economy by taking the money out of the refunds going to all Americans. Instead of keeping to his pledge to Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press…
“No. I think we should increase it (spending) by whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win. It is critical that the United States of America be successful in Iraq.”
…Kerry chose to vote against the final resolution keeping the taxpayers money in the hands of the taxpayers and the weapons and protection our soldiers needed out of theirs.

For and Against the Patriot Act.

There has been no bigger piece of legislation since 9/11 that allows our law enforcement agencies to do what is necessary to pro-actively go after terrorists and terrorist cells in the United States than the Patriot Act. Kerry himself voted for this but now is against it, claiming it spies on Americans. But this is not true.

John Kerry would like you to believe that the Patriot Act is being used against good, law abiding Americans infringing on their liberties. In fact this piece of legislation is has lead to the capture of terrorist cells throughout America…keeping us safe to pursue life, liberty and happiness.

No Child Left Behind.

Kerry was an original supporter of the No Child Left Behind Act, however now he claims that he does not support it. Al Franken would like you to believe that it is because President Bush has under funded the NCLBA, however this is a lie and not true.
Today, more than $7,000 on average is spent per pupil by local, state and federal taxpayers. States and local school districts are now receiving more federal funding than ever before for all programs under No Child Left Behind: $23.7 billion, most of which will be used during the 2003-04 school year. This represents an increase of 59.8 percent from 2000 to 2003.
So why has Senator Kerry flip-flopped on this issue and why is Al Franken lying?

John Kerry was against the death penalty for terrorists before 9/11 but supports it after 9/11.

Al Franken agrees with Sean Hannity on this one and I agree with Al. I can give Kerry a pass for changing his tune on this, after the entire world as we know it changed on that fateful day. But why does Al Franken insist on lying that George Bush wanted to invade Iraq prior to 9/11? He has no proof that this was the case. And why does the left like to claim President Bush flip-flopped on nation building after 9/11? Is his reasoning not the same as Kerry’s?

Al Franken ends his article by trying to insist that George Bush, Sean Hannity, and Republicans in general have no core or values in general. However this is not true and is another of his lies. Infact the exact opposite is true.

Republicans are the party of the pro-life, strong on defense, fiscally conservative, religious right that connects to the everyday average American. Democrats on the other hand try to appeal to everyone else. They have to be anti-war while also appearing to be strong on defense. They must be pro-death, I mean choice, while still trying to get communion on Sunday. They try to appeal to the environmentalists by opposing drilling in ANWAR yet court the SUV driving soccer mom by claiming we are too dependant on foreign oil. This does not seem like a core or base to me…atleast not a solid one.

Beirut_Veteran
06-08-2004, 09:51 PM
well all I can cut and paste is this......



"Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ... to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war." letter from Senator John Kerry to Wallace Carter of Newton Centre, Massachusetts, dated January 22 [1991]

And at the same time, he wrote this:

"Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf." Senator Kerry to Wallace Carter, January 31 [1991]

"Flip flopping away..."
Everbody sing....." The nearer my destination the more I am flip flopping away."

Overdose
06-08-2004, 11:00 PM
“I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.” ~John Kerry

He supported the fact to disarm him, because the intelligence we were getting was wrong. Chalabi provided President Bush with all of the “Saddam has weapons, and we know where they are, we must disarm him now, he is an imminent threat” So when President Bush, Rumsfeld all told congress, the American people, and the UN this, of course he was going to say he “supported the disarming of Saddam”

“I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations.”

If you read the reports they say Saddam was actually cooperating more, and if you read the reports, as I’ve posted before, all say Saddam had no weapons, but I guess you failed to read them.

“…you can see Kerry’s own lies in front of you. War with Iraq was used as a last resort. After 13 years of sanctions and inspections that proved futile the only last thing to do was actually enforce the resolutions, specifically 1441 that called for the use of force. Did John Kerry expect another 13 years of the same before enforcing another resolution? Furthermore Bush has built a coalition of countries and did work to get a final resolution authorizing force if Iraq did not disarm. Finally it was Kerry that showed poor leadership by voting to not fund our troops and give them the equipment they needed which leads me to the next topic.”

He did go in as a first resort, it was right after he got the OK from congress. After 13 years, of all UN inspectors saying that Saddam had no weapons, and that we didn’t have proper evidence to attack Saddam…yes those are the 13 years.

“John Kerry would like you to believe that the Patriot Act is being used against good, law abiding Americans infringing on their liberties. In fact this piece of legislation is has lead to the capture of terrorist cells throughout America…keeping us safe to pursue life, liberty and happiness. “

You mean the lawyer that was arrested from Oregon, that was thrown in Jail for no reason, or actual proof. Then was released, because they "wrongly accused him"

“No Child Left Behind.
Kerry was an original supporter of the No Child Left Behind Act, however now he claims that he does not support it. Al Franken would like you to believe that it is because President Bush has under funded the NCLBA, however this is a lie and not true.”

http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/photos/iyp.pdf

It’s a democrat thing, but it WILL help you understand that he did under fund it.

Beirut_Veteran
06-08-2004, 11:04 PM
Not when he sent those letters. They are dated 1991...

Face it politicians flip flop all over the damn place, being in Washington is like man running naked chasing a big breated woman, flip flop everywhere.
OD let it go, you can say what you want about the election but only one person can change my mind and that is me.
So far I am not doing very well either so you have no chance.
:D

Overdose
06-08-2004, 11:07 PM
You think I'm posting these things to change your mind? Ummm, No.

Beirut_Veteran
06-08-2004, 11:11 PM
Well if they are not designed to change someones mind, then why? I post to start debates and of course change minds.

Overdose
06-08-2004, 11:13 PM
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.N. agency searching for evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq said Monday that so far it has not found evidence of one. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/06/sproject.irq.inspections/
--------------------
The CIA told the US Senate yesterday in a statement by David Kay about the US three month search for the alleged weapons of mass destruction that "We have not yet found stocks of weapons." http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/031003/2003100320.html
-------------------
“The DIA report suggests that before the Iraq War, the U.S. intelligence community did not have hard evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed large stocks of chemical and biological warfare agents that posed an imminent threat to U.S. national security.” Jonathan Tucker former UN arms inspector
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0606-01.htm
----------------
Iraq inspectors: No weapons found
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,882074,00.html
--------------------
A report from U.N. weapons inspectors to be released today says they now believe there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994, according to two U.N. diplomats who have seen the document.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0302-07.htm
----------------
UNITED NATIONS -- A report from U.N. weapons inspectors to be released today says they now believe there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994, according to two U.N. diplomats who have seen the document.
http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDe...2&oliID=213
------------------
UNITED NATIONS — A report from U.N. weapons inspectors to be released today says they now believe there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994, according to two U.N. diplomats who have seen the document
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/...02-un-wmd_x.htm
-------------------
Blix told the council that no weapons of mass destruction were found in the country
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/feb/14iraq1.htm
-------------------
The United Nations' chief weapons inspector says his inspectors found no proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, prior to the US-led invasion of the country.
http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,,1429_W_884518,00.html
----------------
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- U.N. inspectors found no evidence before the U.S.-led invasion in March that Iraq had reconstituted its chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programs, chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix said Thursday. http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/05/sprj.irq.blix.report/
A new report says United Nations inspectors found no evidence Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story....mp;nav=0RceGAGn
-----------------------
As expected, the CIA's lead weapons inspector told congressional intelligence committees Thursday that his team has not yet found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/sprj.irq.kay/
------------------
The chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, said he was starting to suspect Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction in advance of the war on Iraq, a German newspaper reported Friday."I am obviously very interested in the question of whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction, and I am beginning to suspect there possibly were none," Mr Blix told the Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel. http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/05/1614090_comment.php
----------------------
The Pentagon's intelligence service reported last September that it had no reliable evidence that Iraq had chemical agents in weaponized form, officials said today, supporting Mr. Blix damning accusations against US and UK motives for war.
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/06/1616976.php
----------------------------------
The CIA official in charge of the search for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq has said no such weapons have so far been found. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3157246.stm
"I think that the vast majority of people are feeling that there is very little likelihood that they had anything, and the biggest chance is that they destroyed them in 1991," he said.
http://www.dawn.com/2003/12/24/int2.htm
-------------------------------
The former UN chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, believes that Iraq destroyed most of its weapons of mass destruction 10 years ago, according to an interview broadcast yesterday.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Stor...44511%2C00.html
-------------------------------
"We have not found at this point actual weapons," the expert told reporters after giving closed door briefings to the Senate and House of Representatives intelligence committees on the work of the Iraq Survey Group.
http://www.news.com.au/common/story...255E2%2C00.html
-------------------------
Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter “Iraq not a threat” http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/08/ritter.iraq/
------------------------------
Iraq's nuclear program had been suspended for many years.
There was no solid evidence linking Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, nor evidence that Iraq would transfer WMD to terrorists.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3380645.stm)
------------------------------
The search group in charge of finding evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, led by David Kay, has released an interim report saying none have yet been found.
------------------

**Your 13 years**
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3161032.stm)

Beirut_Veteran
06-08-2004, 11:20 PM
Maybe in smaller quantities, maybe you could put less on a page. I am not debating you tonight on any subject. I have done this one to death.
So find something else like who is a better guitar player, Clapton or Paige?
Something fun.
:D

The Republican
06-09-2004, 08:44 AM
You mean the lawyer that was arrested from Oregon, that was thrown in Jail for no reason, or actual proof. Then was released, because they "wrongly accused him"

You mean the guy that had a false positive for his fingerprints showing up on a bag of detonators in Spain? If that was my fingerprint I hope they would do the same thing to me. Once it was proven it was not, and could not be his fingerprints he was cleared of all charges. What is the problem?

He did go in as a first resort, it was right after he got the OK from congress. After 13 years, of all UN inspectors saying that Saddam had no weapons, and that we didn’t have proper evidence to attack Saddam…yes those are the 13 years.

If you read the reports they say Saddam was actually cooperating more, and if you read the reports, as I’ve posted before, all say Saddam had no weapons, but I guess you failed to read them.

I am not arguing this with you anymore. I think you are wrong, you think I am wrong. I am not going to convince you, you are not going to convince me. Lets drop it...this dead horse gets really boring to beat.

Mr. Shaman
06-10-2004, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Face it politicians flip flop all over the damn place.....
Isn't that the truth??!!!!!! (http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=685) :rolleyes:

saycricket
06-10-2004, 07:42 PM
"Flip flopping away..." Everbody sing....." The nearer my destination the more I am flip flopping away." ROFLMAO!! Too Damn Funny!!

I love it when you bring humor to the forums! OD let it go, you can say what you want about the election but only one person can change my mind and that is me. So far I am not doing very well either so you have no chance. LOL!!

You're right...this is an issue that has lived and died. Let it go, man!!