Forums

[sgtclub]

From Newsmax:

• Among the more egregious of the tragicomic whoppers noted:
  
  
  Kerry now claims the "most important task" is to win the "war on terrorism." Yet Kerry, speaking to his pets at the New York Times in March, refused to call the war on terror a war, RNC recalled.
  Kerry then: "The final victory in the war on terror depends on a victory in the war of ideas, much more than the war on the battlefield. And the war - not the war, I don’t want to use that terminology."
  
  
  
  Kerry now claims Iraq was a "diversion from" the war on terror. On Dec. 15 he said: "Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror."
  
  Kerry now claims Saddam Hussein's evil was not enough to justify war. Here's what he said in a speech July 29, 2002:
  "I agree completely with this administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq – Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991."
  
  
  
  Kerry now claims Saddam’s "downfall ... has left America less secure." Oopsy: Here's his anti-Dean, anti-Saddam stand in December 2003, according to Newsday:
  "Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not safer with his capture, don’t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."
  
  
  Kerry now claims the decision to go into Iraq was a "colossal" failure. Yet on Aug. 9, Kerry said that had he known then what he knew now, he would still have voted for the use-of-force resolution, according to CNN:
  "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it's the right authority for a president to have. But I would have used that authority, as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively."
  
  
  Kerry now claims Saddam was not a "threat to our security." Here's what he said in January 2003, according to the L.A. Times: "If you don't believe ... Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."
  
  
  Kerry now claims Saddam's "capability to acquire weapons" was not reason enough for war. Yet according to the Congressional Record of Oct. 9, 2002, he called those who would leave the Iraqi dictator alone "naive to the point of grave danger."
  And so on and so forth.
  
  At least no one can say Kerry is two-faced. He has so many more faces than that.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...0/153604.shtml

eft