Kerry Says He Wouldn't Have Ousted Saddam

first off, the link to the story...

story.news.yahoo.com.../ap/politics_of_iraq

now, if you don't remember, a couple of months ago kerry stated quite plainly that if he had known what he knew then (several months ago), prior to the invasion of iraq, he still would have gone through with the war. now, he's saying he wouldn't have. this, my friends, is why people believe kerry shouldn't be president. this tendency he has to change his mind on important issues in such a short amount of time.


EDIT: just correcting the link.

[edit on 20-9-2004 by astroblade]

I can see what you are saying Astroblade, and why this is unappealing to you. In fact, I'm not a fan of Kerry myself, but...

I would personally like to have a president that would consider changing his mind on certain positions than someone who will stick by something even when all evidence supports the "other" position. Kerry's "flip-flopping" really does not bother me that much. What does bother me about him is that I believe he is doing it to gain as much acceptance as he can with very little regard to the issues themselves.

I see Kerry as merely trying to sway as many voters as possible to his side.

However, if his or any other person's morality dictated them to take back a position that they now consider wrong, then I say good on them. What I do not like is people with little to give except for their ability to sway on issues simply to gain votes. That is wrong!

Its a tough issue, because one can never look into the soul of a man/woman to tell if they are changing their mind based on a "belief" or a "moral", or because they greedily want to curry more votes. Its a tough call in that respect...

I do not like Kerry.

However I'd rather have someone wishy-washy than someone who takes a country from a few hundred internal murders a yer to thousands a month INCLUDING americans and british.

Kerry is a bad choice. Bush is a worse one. America is screwwed.

Just a message from your friendly bitter republican.

astroblade,

I don't know if I was to get convince by this to vote for bush, I will said that the Iraq war fiasco is more than enough evidence to think that bush was not that smart going into Iraq.

Just an honest opinion.

jazzerman, i agree completley. if it is a moral decision that redirects ones opinion then all the better for that person, but i just don't believe, as you don't, that kerry is basing his positions on morality.

quest, i just wanted to know what murders you are talking about. what few hundred internal murders and what "thousands a month"?

no, not at all marg, i just thought this was something someone on hear might like to read about. honesty and opinions are fine with me.

America is not here to 'rescue the world'. If we can help along the way with a very minimum of destruction that is fine.

George W. Bush was NOT elected to liberate Iraq because he 'felt like it' or need to avenge his daddy.

With Saddam:
He was evil
His people mostly hated him not US
He kept that small portion of the planet under his repressive control

Without Saddam:
Iraq is full of 10,000 people's families and tribes/clans that hate US not Saddam for killing one of their own.
Is a breeding ground for terrorists because there is absolute chaos and disorder, partly because the administration has been so busy lining up contracts in Iraq for their favored corporations instead of going in there with real Ideals and Principles like we meant it.
Iraq is a safe haven for foreign terrorists and where they can and ARE recruiting new young terrorists.

IF YOU ENJOY TERRORISM VOTE FOR GEORGE W. BUSH

IF YOU WANT TO END TERRORISM VOTE FOR SOMEONE ELSE

[edit on 20-9-2004 by slank]