A Common Criticism of Kerry
One charge I have often heard leveled against Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry is that he is inconsistent (or a "flip-flopper"). This charge has, in my experience, been primarily concerned with his statements and actions relating to the war in Iraq and the funding of supplies for U.S. troops. In particular, it has been claimed: (a) that Kerry is inconsistent because, although voting in favor of the bill that gave President Bush the authorization to attack Iraq, Kerry has said that that war was "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time" and other things that suggest that he now views the decision to go to war as the wrong one to make; and (b) that Kerry is inconsistent because, although he has criticized Bush for sending American troops into Iraq without necessary equipment and supplies, he voted against an appropriations bill that would have provided $87 billion, later saying "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
Before going on to consider the charge that Kerry has been inconsistent in these cases, I note that there are other topics on which he has been accused of being inconsistent. However, those under consideration here seem to be both the most prominent and the most convincing cases. Thus, in considering them I am considering the cases that have been the most persuasive.
That being said, is there anything that can be said in response to the charges leveled against Kerry? The answer is a resounding "Yes".
Consider (a). Now it is true that Kerry voted in favor of giving Bush the authority to go to war against Iraq. However, that authorization was not a declaration of war. It simply stated that, should Bush decide to act militarily, he was authorized to do so. Even at the time, though, Kerry supported a war only if that war took place as a last resort (i.e., after weapons inspectors had been given time to complete their job) and with the approval of the United Nations. Thus, in criticizing the war now, Kerry is not being inconsistent. He is not even being inconsistent when he says that he supports Bush's choice to disarm Saddam. Rather, he is expressing his disapproval of the way in which Bush did so; i.e., the way in which Bush used the authorization.
Now consider (b). It is true that Kerry voted against an $87 billion appropriations bill for Iraq. However, there are certain things to consider here. First, that bill was not considered until October of 2003. Bush declared an end to major combat in Iraq on May 2, 2003. Thus, since Kerry's charge against Bush concerns the state of the troops as they were being sent in to fight in Iraq, Kerry's vote against the bill is not inconsistent with that charge. Second, the appropriations bill's provisions were mainly to provide for reconstruction of Iraq, not for supplies for the troops. (For information concerning the bill, see http://english.people.com.cn/200309/08/eng20030908_123931.shtml.) Finally, Kerry did support a modified version of the bill, one that would have raised the money called for in the bill by repealing Bush's income tax cuts for people making over $300,000.
For the information used here to defend Kerry against the charge of inconsistency, see: http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2004/09/24/news/nation/frinat03.txt, http://www.theworldlink.com/articles/2004/08/04/opinion/editorial/edit03.prt, http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=269.html, and http://www.factcheck.org/article268.html.
Before going on to consider the charge that Kerry has been inconsistent in these cases, I note that there are other topics on which he has been accused of being inconsistent. However, those under consideration here seem to be both the most prominent and the most convincing cases. Thus, in considering them I am considering the cases that have been the most persuasive.
That being said, is there anything that can be said in response to the charges leveled against Kerry? The answer is a resounding "Yes".
Consider (a). Now it is true that Kerry voted in favor of giving Bush the authority to go to war against Iraq. However, that authorization was not a declaration of war. It simply stated that, should Bush decide to act militarily, he was authorized to do so. Even at the time, though, Kerry supported a war only if that war took place as a last resort (i.e., after weapons inspectors had been given time to complete their job) and with the approval of the United Nations. Thus, in criticizing the war now, Kerry is not being inconsistent. He is not even being inconsistent when he says that he supports Bush's choice to disarm Saddam. Rather, he is expressing his disapproval of the way in which Bush did so; i.e., the way in which Bush used the authorization.
Now consider (b). It is true that Kerry voted against an $87 billion appropriations bill for Iraq. However, there are certain things to consider here. First, that bill was not considered until October of 2003. Bush declared an end to major combat in Iraq on May 2, 2003. Thus, since Kerry's charge against Bush concerns the state of the troops as they were being sent in to fight in Iraq, Kerry's vote against the bill is not inconsistent with that charge. Second, the appropriations bill's provisions were mainly to provide for reconstruction of Iraq, not for supplies for the troops. (For information concerning the bill, see http://english.people.com.cn/200309/08/eng20030908_123931.shtml.) Finally, Kerry did support a modified version of the bill, one that would have raised the money called for in the bill by repealing Bush's income tax cuts for people making over $300,000.
For the information used here to defend Kerry against the charge of inconsistency, see: http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2004/09/24/news/nation/frinat03.txt, http://www.theworldlink.com/articles/2004/08/04/opinion/editorial/edit03.prt, http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=269.html, and http://www.factcheck.org/article268.html.
posted by Greg at 6:56 AM
0 comments
