Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (550131)	3/9/2004 8:56:56 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"but we'll never know..." We'll never know anything Kerry would do as President, because he will never be the President. He represents the haters like you, and you don't represent America. Glad that you endorse Rudy G though. I think after Bush's next term that Rudy G is the most likely President.

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (550131)	3/9/2004 8:59:03 PM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Kerry's Position(s) on Iraq: A Riddle Inside a Mystery Wrapped in an Enigma... John Kerry is interviewed by Time and the AP and is given ample opportunity to explain his position on the Iraq war. The words "might," "I can't say," and "that’s not a fair question" figure prominently: TIME: Would you say your position on Iraq is a) it was a mistaken war; b) it was a necessary war fought in a bad way; or c) fill in the blank? KERRY: I think George Bush rushed to war without exhausting the remedies available to him, without exhausting the diplomacy necessary to put the U.S. in the strongest position possible, without pulling together the logistics and the plan to shore up Iraq immediately and effectively. TIME: And you as Commander in Chief would not have made these mistakes but would have gone to war? KERRY: I didn't say that. TIME: I'm asking. KERRY: I can't tell you. TIME: Might the war have been avoided? KERRY: Yes. Time's correspondents tackle their difficult assignment from another angle. Once again, no luck: TIME: So, if we don't find WMD, the war wasn't worth the costs? That's a yes? KERRY: No, I think you can still—wait, no. You can't—that's not a fair question, and I'll tell you why. You can wind up successful in transforming Iraq and changing the dynamics, and that may make it worth it, but that doesn't mean was the cause [that provided the] legitimacy to go. You have to have that distinction. This Mike Glover AP piece at least gets Kerry to admit that there's a good chance that Saddam Hussein would still be in power if he were president: In discussing foreign policy, the Massachusetts senator said he couldn't guarantee that Saddam Hussein would now be out of power in Iraq if he had been president over the past year. "I can't tell you that," said Kerry, who faults Bush for not allowing continued U.N. inspections in Iraq for weapons of mass destruction Saddam was said to be hiding. Let's go back to the Time piece for some historical reference: TIME: What would you have done about Iraq had you been the President? KERRY: If I had been the President, I might have gone to war but not the way the President did. It might have been only because we had exhausted the remedies of inspections, only because we had to—because it was the only way to enforce the disarmament. Which directly contradicts what he told Rolling Stone in December: If I were president, we would not be in Iraq today -- we would not be at war. Which is kind of hard to square with this, from the first Democratic debate in May 2003: I would have preferred if we had have given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. When the president made the decision, I supported him and I support the fact that we did disarm him. Glenn Reynolds summed up exactly this sort of thing very well the other day: "Kerry: He's everywhere you want him to be!"