I don't think the Kerry "flip-flop" issue will stick, especially re Iraq.

[Brotherjohn]

Look at the polls. A lot of American people have also "flip-flopped" on the Iraq War. They are in the same boat as Kerry. They see Kerry as having given qualified support for the president in the beginning, but having been betrayed by a president who did NOT exhaust all diplomatic options and who arguably lied to Congress and the American people in gaining their support.

So the majority of the people will not feel that Kerry flip-flopped on Iraq. They will simply feel that his opinions have mirrorred their own throughout the ordeal.

Regarding flip-flops on other issues, most people are now well aware of Bush's many very public flip-flops in the last 4 years alone... from no nation-building to nation-building, from no 9-11 commission to a 9-11 commission, from regulating greenhouse gases to not, from keeping gay marriage a states' right issue to backing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, etc., etc., etc.

As Bush continues to push the "flip-flop" issue, his expansive record of direct flip-flops on many issues will come back to bite him.

[sangh0]

1. I agree

Evey time they accuse Kerry of a flip-flop he will defend his decision and go on the attack, listing all of Bush*'s many flip-flops. Kerry doesn't just play defense. He also goes on offense

[trotsky]

2. Excellent point on Iraq.

Hadn't thought of it that way.

[Sushi-Lover]

3. I don't think it is going to stick either

I'm thinking that perhaps flip-flop has been overused. Hopefully the flip-flop market has been flooded. It can be countered by pointing out Bush's f/f as many have said or by discrediting the idea of flip-flops all together. Somebody earlier suggested that Kerry use the bait and switch term to describe Bush. I like bait and switch, it has a nice ring and it is harder to refute with the evolving viewpoint response.

[jpgray]

4. I've made this point several times on this board--I fully agree (nt)

[Mr_Scarecrow]

5. However, thanks to Tenet's testimony today

Bush is immune from charges of betrayal on Iraq. Kerry won't call him out after that. Tenet gave him a free pass. Election over. I'd love to be proven wrong, but unless something new comes up, that one issue, the most important one to this election, has been closed.

[Brotherjohn]

6. Regardless of what Tenet said or ways, most people feel they were misled.

Most people feel that the threat was hyped and the need for this war was questionable at best. Most people feel we are in over our heads, and know that more American soldiers die every day. Most people know that this is all on Bush's watch.

People vote their gut. People don't vote based on Tenet's testimony.

[Brotherjohn]

9. I just read about his testimony...

So he says Bush didn't misrepresent intelligence. Well, case closed!

But of course, we know enought facts to make it clear that Bush DID misrepresent intelligence. We know of many many cases where intel damning to Iraq was pushed or stated without the intelligence service qualifiers, and intel downplaying Iraq's threat, or countering the administration line, was outright ignored or buried.

Tenet also said today that it was possible he (Saddam) could surprise them with something. Well, so it was POSSIBLE that he was a threat. Not that we have any actual evidence or anything.

Tenet's testimony today was nothing but toeing the party line.

[sangh0]

10. They ignored evidence they didn't like

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/06/politics/06WEAP.html

U.S., Certain That Iraq Had Illicit Arms, Reportedly Ignored Contrary Reports

"In the two years before the war in Iraq, American intelligence agencies reviewed but ultimately dismissed reports from Iraqi scientists, defectors and other informants who said Saddam Hussein's government did not possess illicit weapons, according to government officials.

The reports, which ran contrary to the conclusions of the intelligence agencies and the Bush administration, were not acknowledged publicly by top government officials before the invasion last March. In public statements, the agencies and the administration cited only reports from informants who supported the view that Iraq possessed so-called weapons of mass destruction, which the administration cited as a main justification for going to war..."

[Brotherjohn]

11. The WP has also run a similar story. But this fact is so obvious...

... that it doesn't take investigative reporting or special commissions to tell most people.

Most people were well aware leading up to the war, just from reading USA Today and watching CNN, that others had dissenting opinions. In particular, the "human intelligence" on the ground, U.N. Inspectors, was consistently disagreeing with the Bush administration on the extent of Iraq's WMD capability.

The Bush administration was repeatedly challenged to come up with concrete evidence backing up their claim that Iraq was a threat that needed to be dealt with militarily. And the general reaction every time they were forced to offer more evidence was "is that all you have?" Even the (allegedly) most convincing evidence, Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. in Feb. 2003, was roundly challeneged on most of its major points.

Remember, how many people were saying "well, Bush must know something we don't". Well, now those people know that he did not, and most of those people feel betrayed.

[sangh0]

12. Yep. Tenet isn't going to convince anyone

that Bush* is honest. It's way too late for that

[Drifter]

7. Lets look at public opinion ...

When AWOL marched us into war, there was a 70% war approval rating. It appears that now it is around 40%.

That means about 1/3 of the public has "flip-flopped" on the Iraq issue. Why? Because everyone was duped by AWOL administration.

People trusted him, and gave him the benefit of the doubt. Now it appears that not only are there no WMD, but these corrupt bastards knew it all along. They exaggerated and lied about it to get their war, which ... surprise ... was planned long before AWOL announced he was running for President.

AWOL is the last person who can blame someone else for flip-flopping on the issue.

Cheers
Drifter

[Brotherjohn]

8. And that means 60% were either against the war in the first place, or...

... like Kerry, "flip-flopped" on the issue. And that number is growing.

Not only that, but although Bush has tried (and will continue to try) to characterize Kerry's "Yea" vote on the IWR as "supporting the war", and his "Nay" vote on the $87B as a "flip-flop". It doesn't take much to counter that. I myself thought it might be a good idea to strengthen the sword held over Hussein's head so that we could get inspectors back in and determine whether he was re-starting WMD programs or not. I can understand the desire, at least, to verify this... especially post 9-11. And I believe that our military build-up did put pressure on Iraq to prove it was in compliance. None of this, however, means that I was for invading Iraq, especially in light of what we found out with the return of inspectors.

The problem here for Bush is, Iraq proved they were in compliance. He simply ignored that. All the evidence gathered in the months before the war was showing that the threat was NOT as great as we feared. If Bush had stopped there and said "There. Thanks to military pressure by our brave armed forces allowing U.N. inspectors to return, we now can rest safely knowing that we have Saddam Hussein contained", I would have applauded his statesmanship.

But of course, he wanted war from the beginning, and was going to have it no matter what.

Kerry probably feels as betrayed as the rest of us, as his vote against the $87B to continue in Iraq demonstrates. I'm sure he can cogently state as much during the campaign.