John Kerry, The War and The Democratic Convention
John Kerry has taken every possible position on the War in Iraq. Not long ago, when a Democrat was in the White House and Kerry was not running for President he stated that the United States must be willing to go it alone in Iraq:
..."while we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise."
After falling behind Howard Dean, the staunch anti-war candidate in the Democratic Primary, John Kerry stated in a debate that he was an "anti-war" candidate. The on January 23, 2003 John Kerry again switched positions declaring that:
Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real.
So far he has been for the war, against the war and at this point he is for the war again, but his contortions do not stop there.
In January 2004 during an appearance on "Hardball" with Chris Matthews, John Kerry had this to say in response to Chris Matthews question regarding the war:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way its been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates? KERRY: I am -- Yes, in the sense that I dont believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.
After voting for the war, John Kerry voted against the 87 Billion dollar supplement for the war effort. He obviously thought afterwards that it was a mistake to vote against it, because when he was questions about it he famously said:
"I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
After declaring himself anti-war (at this point), Kerry found that it would be politically expedient to support the additional $25 billion dollar supplement for the war effort in Iraq. He stated:
"The situation in Iraq has deteriorated far beyond what the [Bush] administration anticipated. This money is urgently needed and it is completely focused on the needs of our troops,
Then of course when it came time to vote, he was too busy campaigning to come to Washington to vote for the funding, to which the Bush Campaign responded:
"John Kerry has once again shown himself to be foragainst funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. After saying he would support the President's $25 billion funding proposal, Kerry skipped yesterday's vote on the bill. Only John Kerry could give a speech on modernizing and equipping our military the day after he didn't show up to vote to send money to the troops engaged in essential operations."
-Steve Schmidt, Bush-Cheney '04 Spokesman
After voting against the $87 Billion supplement and mounting a comical defense upon being questioned about it, John Kerry Stated last week that he is now "proud" that he and his running mate John Edwards voted against it:
"Here is the value that John Edwards and I will put in place. I'm proud to say that John joined me in voting against that $87 billion when we knew the policy had to be changed." (John Kerry, Remarks at "Women's Voices: A Luncheon with John Kerry," Boston, MA, 7/12/04)
Apparently John Kerry is proud of voting for the war, but then voting against the funding for the war. Then last Sunday John Kerry drew a political line in the sand during a "60 Minutes" interview. He stated:
"I am against the the war."
So there it is. John Kerry is against the war. He is proud that he did not vote for the $87 Billion, and it can be presumed that he is proud that he did not vote for the $25 Billion. John Kerry has now clarified the Democratic ticket's position on the War in Iraq. They are against it. As in 1972, the Democratic ticket for President of the United States is anti-war, a position that is supported by the speaking list for their convention. The list includes Al "digital brownshirts" Gore, Howard "bring the troops home now" Dean, Bill "internationalize the war" Clinton, Jimmy "That was a war based on lies" Carter, Ted "Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam" Kennedy and possibly Al "Why do they lie? Because they're liars!" Sharpton.
The American people will witness the most liberal party convention in modern history. The convention will also bring together for all the world to see, the radical groups that now make up the core of the modern Democratic Party. The Move.org/Michael Moore contingency will be large and vocal and will cheer Al Gore and Howard Dean when they veer into the world of conspiracy and rabid anti-Bush rhetoric. Based on past Presidential races, John Kerry should get a significant bump in the polls after the convention. This convention however, could quickly spin out of control for the Kerry campaign. The effect may not be seen until after the Republican convention when America can juxtapose the ultra-liberal speakers and the environment of hate displayed at the Democratic convention to the moderate tone and atmosphere of the Republican convention that will feature John McCain, Zell Miller and Rudy Giuliani. Americans will also have the opportunity to see many of the same radical elements that were cheering during the Democratic convention wreaking havoc in the streets on New York as they "protest" the Republican convention.
The Democrats have derailed as a party. As Zell Miller so eloquently wrote, the Democrats are "A National Party No More", and the Democratic convention will be an unedited showcase of what they have become.