And did so with gusto. Which was a negative to me, but should count in the asset column for Mr. Kristol. Is he still pissed about Vietnam?

voted for IWR with the stipulation that he would oppose any decision to invade if circumstances proved that war was unnecessary to secure Iraq's WMDs. When weapon inspectors in Iraq were proving war was not needed, Kerry sided with the weapon inspectors openly and alone, with no other IWR voters and high-profile Dems (Clinton, Biden) standing with him in opposing Bush's decision to invade. Corpmedia ignored him for siding with the weapon inspectors and for speaking out against the decision.

The corporate media adopted Rove's preferred narrative grouping ALL yes votes for the Resolution as Pro-war, and all no votes as anti-war, even if the no votes were cast because the lawmaker viewed the IWR as not hawkish enough, or the lawmaker preferred Biden-Lugar.

The corporate media made sure the left AND the right were never aware of any discerning details. Too bad so many on the left accepted the narrative so easily.

I remember, because it was on my birthday, and I was angry that he had made a statement on the order of (paraphrasing here) it being necessary to our long-term security.

So sorry, but I have a vivid memory of this. He was my senator at the time.

between his position and Kerry's and so did some members of Kerry's camp. It was so much easier to repeat the narrative that Rove wanted, and, so you and the corporate media did exactly as expected.

<<Kerry voted in support of the Senate resolution authorizing the President to use force against Saddam Hussein if he failed to surrender his weapons of mass destruction and related tools for constructing and distributing them.[11] Kerry, in October 2002, declared his belief that "Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing weaponizing of a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles, such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives which would bring them to the United States itself." The National Intelligence Estimate, to which Kerry had access, held some skepticism of Iraq's capability. Kerry's vote to support the use of force in Iraq was given with strong stipulations that all other peaceful avenues be exhausted first, and that any action of force would be done in conjunction with a world coalition, and not just with the British. (Kerry's full statement before casting his resolution vote)
After the President launched the U.S. invasion against Iraq, without meeting all of Kerry's stipulation, Kerry reiterated his position and declared the Administration's Iraq policy reckless at best and baseless at worst. He has since been outspoken against the handling of the war and of the Bush Administration's stewardship of occupied Iraq, attacking what he calls poor planning and poor diplomacy on Bush's part, but supports remaining in Iraq until the task of reconstruction and reconciliation is complete. He changed his position on WMDS by saying they were not enough to go to war with Iraq. (Kerry's post-attack view on Iraq) This harmed Kerry's campaign when he was perceived as a "flip-flopper," changing his position to better suit what is popular.
Kerry was criticized by Howard Dean and others for his position on the war, which was criticized as inconsistent. Kerry explained his vote authorizing force by claiming that he believed the Senate resolution was intended to be a diplomatic "threat" to Saddam Hussein and not a blank check for war. In the first of the 2004 U.S. presidential election debates, Kerry argued that Saddam Hussein had posed a significant potential threat, but that President Bush was premature in going to war. Kerry stated that war should have been a last resort, after diplomatic pressure and efforts by United Nations weapons inspectors had been allowed to run their course.
Kerry and Bush sparred repeatedly over Kerry's expression of his policy. Kerry maintained that he has "one Iraq policy", while Bush claimed that Kerry has made major changes in his policy. The Bush campaign says that differences between one Kerry policy statement and another amount to "flip-flops." The nonpartisan FactCheck stated that "Kerry has never wavered from his support for giving Bush authority to use force in Iraq, nor has he changed his position that he, as President, would not have gone to war without greater international support."[12]>>

BTW - Dean was FOR Biden-Lugar version of IWR which would STILL have resulted with an invasion of Iraq - media never bothered to check into that fact and cast Dean as the 'anti-war' candidate with none of the scrutiny on his actual position. Dean camp was fine with that and rode it strong until Dick Gephardt hit him with his actual position on Biden-Lugar that was essentially no different than Kerry's during the last debate in Iowa before the caucus vote.

Give it up already. Kerry pulled a typical Romney-style political move, trying to prove his bona fides to one side and then trying to say he never meant that to the other side. He supported the damned invasion.

you did not fail to meet his expectations.

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/NEWS-ANALYSIS-Flip-flopping-charge-unsupported-2723125.php

When pigs fly. You are perhaps blinded by an overzealous idolatry.

called on it.

Kerry was consistent in his reasons for voting for the IWR and for standing against Bush's DECISION to invade once weapon inspections were proving military force was not needed.

Try comprehension. Try fairness. Try reading full statements and not cherry-picked phrases.

Kerry did not support the invasion. In fact his official statement days before the invasion urged Bush not to go to war.

We Still Have a Choice on Iraq
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/06/opinion/we-still-have-a-choice-on-iraq.html

Kerry Says US Needs Its Own 'Regime Change'
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0403-08.htm

While Kerry never let up on Bush, there were other Democrats who did initially.

Video: Dean reacts to capture news
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/3710796#3710796

authorized military action"

Thank you for totally and completely proving my point accurate. Done and done. From your common dreams article:

putting them in complete context.

Funny how you ignored the fact-check link from SF Chronicle I included that dissected ALL the GOP talking points against Kerry re his position on Iraq. Gee - why would YOU, frazzled, be on the same page as the GOP campaign against Kerry? Maybe because you WANTED to believe YOUR conclusions couldn't possibly be wrong? Well, you were wrong then to rely on corpmedia spin against Kerry and still wrong. Deal with it.

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/NEWS-ANALYSIS-Flip-flopping-charge-unsupported-2723125.php

http://www.factcheck.org/bush_ad_twists_kerrys_words_on_iraq.html


Despite accusations, Kerry's position on Iraq has been consistent


http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9743513.htm


Despite accusations, Kerry's position on Iraq has been consistent

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. - Sen. John Kerry set his jaw, and even sighed at one point, as he confronted anew the confusion over his stand on the Iraq war, a fog that has enveloped his candidacy for months.


"I have one position on Iraq," Kerry insisted this week during a rare news conference. "One position."


In fact, he's right, his image as a "flip-flopper" notwithstanding.


Kerry voted in October 2002 for the congressional resolution that authorized President Bush to go to war in Iraq. He now says that the invasion was not justified and has made the United States less secure.


These positions are not contradictory, but his attempts to explain the distinction between them are often complicated, and they have given President Bush an opening to caricature Kerry as a flip-flopper. However, beneath the torrent of campaign verbiage, Kerry's position on Iraq for the past two years has been consistent and defensible - just difficult to sell in a sound-bite world.


Kerry always called for a broad international coalition to confront Saddam Hussein, and going to war only as a last resort. Like most senators, he thought Bush needed the authority - it passed the Senate 77-23, and Kerry was one of 29 Democrats who supported it.


But once Bush got the authority, Kerry believes, he misused it.>>>

Last edited Mon Nov 26, 2012, 12:10 PM - Edit history (1)

On everything. Every single time. He's amazing.

But he keeps spouting his neocon nonsense, and will until he dies. I have no idea why anyone pays any attention to him, but they do. He's been behind almost every lack-wit, pie in the sky idea from the right for years and years.

He should have lost all credibility years ago.

Rice in the first place? Since McCain and Lindsey are part of the hawks and they want war, I'll bet they were using reverse psychology on this one. It's one of the only moves they know, since it is such an old one. I didn't believe getting Brown back in the Senate was their motive so maybe this is.

I don't know why he is saying that Rice is more interventionist than Kerry, but I assume it's not because it's true, I assume he has some other reason for saying that.

By the way, I don't have any idea whether it's true, I'm saying I don't think Kristol thinks it is when he says it.

been performing their dog and pony show for the media - they know it forces Obama to go with Rice, the more hawkish choice and one who they can count on as the more likely to side with military action. Plus, they get the added bonus of watching snookered Dems and left media smear Kerry, who is the LAST person the Republicans want as SoS.

You would think more people in left media would have realized by now that you CANNOT take Republicans at their word.....ever....especially when they are in dog and pony show mode.

useless fucks like Kristol to.

for being Secretary of State, which, as I understand it, is a DIPLOMATIC position? Kristol might have a point if Kerry was being considered for Secretary of War (which, of course, no longer exists).

Maybe he should run for the Republican nomination in 2016.