Kerry comments on France and Russia

[Arles]

http://www.washtimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm

During a 1997 debate on CNN's "Crossfire," Sen. John Kerry, now the Democratic presidential nominee, made the case for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq.

So reveals Rep. Peter King, New York Republican, who appeared with Mr. Kerry on the program.

Mr. King says the U.N. Security Council had just adopted a resolution against Iraq that was watered down at the behest of the French and the Russians. Yet the candidate who now criticizes President Bush for ignoring French and Russian objections to the Iraq war blasted the two countries, claiming that they were compromised by their business dealings with Baghdad.

"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians," said Mr. Kerry. "We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."

-----

So, I guess Kerry's ideas of "repairing relations" with our allies is to rip the Iraqi minister, mock the efforts by the coalition and (a few years back) rip the two people he feels are now vital.

Sounds like a winning plan to me

[Butter]

We seriously need a separate political forum.

[rkmsuf]

Frussia?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

We seriously need a separate political forum.

Nah. Who would go there? It's not like there are four FOF topics getting bumped from the front page by all of the topical stuff.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

We seriously need a separate political forum.

Why? The thread was clearly titled. Did you think this thread was going to be about The World Cup?

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by Arles

http://www.washtimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm

During a 1997 debate on CNN's "Crossfire," Sen. John Kerry, now the Democratic presidential nominee, made the case for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq.

So reveals Rep. Peter King, New York Republican, who appeared with Mr. Kerry on the program.

Mr. King says the U.N. Security Council had just adopted a resolution against Iraq that was watered down at the behest of the French and the Russians. Yet the candidate who now criticizes President Bush for ignoring French and Russian objections to the Iraq war blasted the two countries, claiming that they were compromised by their business dealings with Baghdad.

"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians," said Mr. Kerry. "We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."

-----

So, I guess Kerry's ideas of "repairing relations" with our allies is to rip the Iraqi minister, mock the efforts by the coalition and (a few years back) rip the two people he feels are now vital.

Sounds like a winning plan to me

This is back in 1997. Way before Septemeber 11,, and everything.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Wow, his opinions changed in six years? I'm shocked. Also, that was before 9/11, which changed everything, right?
Plus, it's the Washington Times. If they said the sky was blue, I'd double check.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

Wow, his opinions changed in six years? I'm shocked. Also, that was before 9/11, which changed everything, right?
Plus, it's the Washington Times. If they said the sky was blue, I'd double check.

I think the point is that back when a Democrat was in the White House, taking a reasonably tough stance on Iraq, Kerry and other Dems were out there making the same claims about Iraq being a danger and having WMDs, that the Democrats are now criticizing the current administration for making.(how is that for a run-on sentence?)

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by SunDancer

This is back in 1997. Way before Septemeber 11,, and everything.

Yup, way back before it was even MORE important to take pre-emptive action. Now that we've been attacked, he wants to do LESS?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Yup, way back before it was even MORE important to take pre-emptive action. Now that we've been attacked, he wants to do LESS?

I think "reserving the right" to take pre-emptive action in Iraq sounds more like political posturing (since reserving the right actually does nothing) than actual support for intervention. But maybe that's just me.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

Wow, his opinions changed in six years? I'm shocked. Also, that was before 9/11, which changed everything, right?

So, what changed since 9/11 to force Kerry to change his view of France from being an obstructionist country to a helpful ally?

Perhaps it was the way they tried to veto the Iraq resolution. Maybe it was how they were knee deep in the "Oil-for-food" scandle.

Plus, it's the Washington Times. If they said the sky was blue, I'd double check.

It was taken directly from a 1997 Crossfire appearance on CNN. There's no secret CBS memo on this one and it has been verified.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Yup, way back before it was even MORE important to take pre-emptive action. Now that we've been attacked, he wants to do LESS?

Yeah, I don't get that line of reasoning. If anything, 9/11 changed things to be even MORE in line with what he was saying back in 1997.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Why? The thread was clearly titled. Did you think this thread was going to be about The World Cup?

Didn't click in here to read it, clicked in to make the comment which I've already made. Thanks.

Although more threads about the World Cup would certainly be welcome.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

In any case he still backed the same policy as of Oct, 2002, when he voted for the president's preemptive war... This doesn't exactly come as a great surprise.

[miked]

Keep going guys. We've managed to progress from talking about 40 yrs ago to 7 yrs ago. We are almost there to talking about what matters...now and tomorrow. But, please scour the internet to make sure I'm informed about what John Kerry told Dianne Sawyer in the bathroom in 1988 about tax relief.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by miked

Keep going guys. We've managed to progress from talking about 40 yrs ago to 7 yrs ago. We are almost there to talking about what matters...now and tomorrow. But, please scour the internet to make sure I'm informed about what John Kerry told Dianne Sawyer in the bathroom in 1988 about tax relief.

You sure it was "tax" relief?

[Solecismic]

Politicians would be willing to promise daily delivery of free pizza to everyone on the continent if they felt it would get them elected. At least 90% of every speech by either candidate has to be dismissed as fertilizer.

We have to look at voting records and non-election season speeches. I'm glad Kerry is finally moving off of 30 years in his campaign, but I still don't know what he'd do if president. All I know is that he fought bravely in Vietnam, but had a strange habit of going back to battle scenes and directing movies. And that the President can't as much as take a dump without Kerry criticizing his choice of toilet paper.

What Kerry did seven years ago is relevant. Just as what Bush did last year (i.e. needlessly start a war) is relevant.

[miked]

Yeah, I know it's relevant...we need a nice sarcasm emoticon. I'd just like more talk about what they're going to do about jobs, deficits and stuff like that.

And Bush better be using Quilted Northern.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by miked

And Bush better be using Quilted Northern.

I do know he stopped using Heinz Ketchup.

[Buddy Grant]

It really bugs me when guys like Kerry speak ill of fine nations like France and Russia, they are our allies after all, and their opinions should be respected (as long as they are toeing the line and know their place). Just another (of several) reasons why America needs to continue on her present course, damn the consequences - you can't please everyone after all.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Politicians would be willing to promise daily delivery of free pizza to everyone on the continent if they felt it would get them elected. At least 90% of every speech by either candidate has to be dismissed as fertilizer.

We have to look at voting records and non-election season speeches. I'm glad Kerry is finally moving off of 30 years in his campaign, but I still don't know what he'd do if president. All I know is that he fought bravely in Vietnam, but had a strange habit of going back to battle scenes and directing movies. And that the President can't as much as take a dump without Kerry criticizing his choice of toilet paper.

What Kerry did seven years ago is relevant. Just as what Bush did last year (i.e. needlessly start a war) is relevant.

Only 90% as the threshold?

[portnoise]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Yup, way back before it was even MORE important to take pre-emptive action. Now that we've been attacked, he wants to do LESS?

Because invading Iraq in 97 would have preempted 9/11? Um...

Anyway, Kerry's key words here are "when it's in our national interest." Would you say it's been in the nation's interest to fight this war? That's a rhetorical question; obviously we've all carved out our positions... but it remains the question nonetheless: Did the Iraq war help or hurt the war on terror?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by portnoise

Because invading Iraq in 97 would have preempted 9/11? Um...

The foresight of Kerry - knowing all the way back in 1997 that we would be attacked on 9/11. It certainly explains why he voted all those years to cut intelligence funding. I mean, who needs the CIA when you can see the future

Arlie

[Dutch]

Pretty powerful comments that pretty much put Kerry in line with the Republicans, could anybody provide me with a linke to these comments from CNN, NBC, ABC, or CBS, the AP or Reuters? Oh, I forgot....they don't cover "their" guy in too much detail.

[MIJB#19]

Wow, I can see the headlines in the Dutch media already: USA's right wing presidental candidate turns out to have a right wing opinion!

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Pretty powerful comments that pretty much put Kerry in line with the Republicans, could anybody provide me with a linke to these comments from CNN, NBC, ABC, or CBS, the AP or Reuters? Oh, I forgot....they don't cover "their" guy in too much detail.

Well, I was curious so I looked into it, and nobody is really covering it. Fox News and The Wall Street Journal don't have it either, so it's clearly not a partisan thing, even were I to believe that all the sources you listed are partisan. Turns out the probable reason is that the statement is false.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=36916

The actual quotes were:

"I don't think anybody can deny that we would have liked it to have threatened force and we would have liked it to carry the term serious consequences will flow. On the other hand, the coalition is together. I mean, the fact is there is a unanimous statement by the security council and the United Nations that there has to be immediate, unrestricted, unconditional access to the sites. That's very strong language. And it also references the underlying resolution on which the use of force is based. So clearly the allies may not like it, and I think that's our great concern -- where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity -- but in a sense, they're now climbing into a box and they will have enormous difficulty not following up on this if there is not compliance by Iraq."

and

"Well, John, there's absolutely no statement that they have made or that they will make that will prevent the United States of America and this president or any president from acting in what they believe are the best interests of our country. And obviously it's disappointing. It was disappointing a month ago not to have the French and the Russians understanding that they shouldn't give any signals of weakening on the sanctions and I think those signals would have helped bring about this crisis because they permitted Saddam Hussein to interpret that maybe the moment was right for him to make this challenge."

Granted, the general sentiment expressed in the false quotes was correct, but look how far that got Dan Rather...

As I said previously, it's no surprise that Kerry has agreed with the basic tenets of the pre-emptive war doctrine, given that he voted for it in the senate. But you can't draw any conclusions from nobody covering this story since it's no more valid than the National Guard documents.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

And actually, if you click on the link at the top of the thread you'll see that they have now added a correction to their story...

[Sharpieman]

Geez, what a flip flopper. I mean come on, how can we elect a guy who changes his opinions every 7 years? NOBODY has EVER changed their opinion in 7 years. I think its just stupid to elect a guy who changes his opinions aobut an issue. I know I've never changed my opinions or beliefs before, to me Santa Claus is still real.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

Geez, what a flip flopper. I mean come on, how can we elect a guy who changes his opinions every 7 years? NOBODY has EVER changed their opinion in 7 years. I think its just stupid to elect a guy who changes his opinions aobut an issue. I know I've never changed my opinions or beliefs before, to me Santa Claus is still real.

I read somewhere that Bush knew his whole life there was no Santa, but Kerry didn't stop believing until he was 8 years old. Do we really want this guy as leader? I am off the research on how they feel about the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny.

The sad part is that I can remember 10-15 years ago when I believed the government was there for me. I wish I could go back to that time when I was like Arles or Buddy Grant or John Galt and thought my canidate did no wrong. But it is sad how more and more threads and news stories like this show me how full of shit everyone is. The canidates, that is. (EDIT: Well okay the posters also)

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

And actually, if you click on the link at the top of the thread you'll see that they have now added a correction to their story...

Mojo, you'll quickly see that no one is interested in facts. Facts tend to get in the way.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

Geez, what a flip flopper. I mean come on, how can we elect a guy who changes his opinions every 7 years? NOBODY has EVER changed their opinion in 7 years. I think its just stupid to elect a guy who changes his opinions aobut an issue. I know I've never changed my opinions or beliefs before, to me Santa Claus is still real.

The real problem is not that he changed his opinion, but why he changed his opinion. What changed his opinion? I mean, other than the presidential switch from Democrat to Republican.

[clintl]

I don't see anything in the true quotes that contradicts what Kerry is saying today. His main point, then as now, stresses the importance of having a united coalition.

[Dutch]

And our need to take care of America if France and Russia (for instance) could not give a flying crap about us. I agree, but he's not saying that now, just then.

[clintl]

When has Kerry ever said that the US shouldn't reserve the right to act in its own interests? He has criticized the specific actions and decisions Bush has taken against Iraq, but he has never, to my knowledge, said that the US didn't have the right to unilaterally protect our interests.

And he didn't say in the true quotes that the US should invade Iraq as a consequence, anyway. He was endorsing the threat of force to gain compliance, not a decision to actually use force.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by clintl

When has Kerry ever said that the US shouldn't reserve the right to act in its own interests? He has criticized the specific actions and decisions Bush has taken against Iraq, but he has never, to my knowledge, said that the US didn't have the right to unilaterally protect our interests.

And he didn't say in the true quotes that the US should invade Iraq as a consequence, anyway. He was endorsing the threat of force to gain compliance, not a decision to actually use force.

Right on everything you said here. He has said directly that the US should act without international approval if it is a matter of national security or an immediate threat. He disaggrees (now) that Bush had those conditions to go into Iraq when he did.

[Dutch]

No. Kerry has basically said that we should not have gone without the approval of France and Russia and that had we had their support, he would have supported it. And he's also said things to counter that.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Dutch

No. Kerry has basically said that we should not have gone without the approval of France and Russia when we did and that had we had their support, he would have supported it...

Fixed it to show what he has actually said.

[cartman]

If we did go after Saddam in '97, I don't see how that would have prevented 9/11. Al Qaeda still would have been plotting and planning in Afghanistan and Pakistan, completely under the radar, since all of the focus would have been on Iraq. If anything, it would have helped them (as it has this time, though not to the same degree) by taking some of the heat off of them and divering it to Iraq.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Fixed it to show what he has actually said.

I don't disagree. He said that too.

[CamEdwards]

I'm still wondering why it was so important to have the backing of France and Germany this time around. It certainly didn't make a difference in 1991,when Kerry voted against the 1st Gulf War.

[Bubba Wheels]

That is just Kerry's opinion on it today, wait for tomorrow on his new opinion.

[Leonidas]

Like any of this matters. Kerry's stance on Iraq is so dilluted and contradictory this is just piling on now. I doubt anyone will be swayed by it one way or the other. It will be interesting to see how he squirms around this in the debate.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

Like any of this matters. Kerry's stance on Iraq is so dilluted and contradictory this is just piling on now. I doubt anyone will be swayed by it one way or the other. It will be interesting to see how he squirms around this in the debate.

My guess is he'll say something similar to what he said after Bush spoke at the UN last week. "I've always held one position", etc. etc. The problem is... no one believes him when he says it.

[cartman]

And I find it hard to believe that some people take it as a fact that Bush picks a position and sticks to it. Here are a few examples, just from the time of his presidency, that show that, yes, even George W. Bush, can and does flip-flop:

1. Social Security Surplus

BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]

...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]

2. Patient's Right to Sue

GOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He... constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects." [Salon, 2/7/01]

...CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. And I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas." [Governor Bush, 10/17/00]

...PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE "To let two Texas consumers, Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their managed-care companies for wrongful denials of medical benefits would be to completely undermine' federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant Solicitor General James A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover, the administration's brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law, which is similar to statutes on the books in nine other states." [Washington Post, 4/5/04]

3. Tobacco Buyout

BUSH SUPPORTS CURRENT TOBACCO FARMERS' QUOTA SYSTEM... "They've got the quota system in place -- the allotment system -- and I don't think that needs to be changed." [President Bush, 5/04]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL SUPPORT FEDERAL BUYOUT OF TOBACCO QUOTAS "The administration is open to a buyout." [White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo, 6/18/04]

4. North Korea

BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM"Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04]

5. Abortion (note by cartman: ok, I admit, this one is a bit of a stretch...)

BUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]

...BUSH OPPOSES A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE "I am pro-life." [Governor Bush, 10/3/00]

6. OPEC

BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES... "What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00]

...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]

7. Iraq Funding

BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004... "We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]

...BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 "I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops." [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]

8. Condoleeza Rice Testimony

BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'... "Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle, not a matter of preference." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]

...BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY: "Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony." [President Bush, 3/30/04]

9. Science

BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE..."I think we ought to have high standards set by agencies that rely upon science, not by what may feel good or what sounds good." [then-Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE "60 leading scientistsincluding Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidentsissued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels." [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04]

10. Ahmed Chalabi

BUSH INVITES CHALABI TO STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS...President Bush also met with Chalabi during his brief trip to Iraq last Thanksgiving [White House Documents 1/20/04, 11/27/03]

...BUSH MILITARY ASSISTS IN RAID OF CHALABI'S HOUSE "U.S. soldiers raided the home of America's one-time ally Ahmad Chalabi on Thursday and seized documents and computers." [Washington Post, 5/20/04]

11. Department of Homeland Security

BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]

12. Weapons of Mass Destruction

BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]

...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons.And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]

13. Free Trade

BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03]

14. Osama Bin Laden

BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]

...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

15. The Environment

BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to...establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]

...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]

16. WMD Commission

BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE... "The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE "Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04]

17. Creation of the 9/11 Commission

BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]

18. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission

BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION "The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work." [CNN, 2/4/04]

19. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony

BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR... "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04]

...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]

20. Gay Marriage

BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]

21. Nation Building

BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]

22. Saddam/al Qaeda Link

BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]

...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]

23. U.N. Resolution

BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03]

...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03]

24. Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict

BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03]

25. Campaign Finance

BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]

...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold signing ceremony, 03/27/02]

26. 527s

Bush opposes restrictions on 527s: "I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising [in McCain Feingold], which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import." [President Bush, 3/27/02]

Bush says 527s bad for system: "I don't think we ought to have 527s. I can't be more plain about itI think they're bad for the system. That's why I signed the bill, McCain-Feingold." [President Bush, 8/23/04]

27. Medical Records

Bush says medical records must remain private: "I believe that we must protectthe right of every American to have confidence that his or her personal medical records will remain private." [President Bush, 4/12/01]

Bush says patients' histories are not confidntial: The Justice Departmentasserts that patients "no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential." [BusinessWeek, 4/30/04]

28. Timelines For Dictators

Bush sets timeline for Saddam: "If Iraq does not accept the terms within a week of passage or fails to disclose required information within 30 days, the resolution authorizes 'all necessary means' to force compliance--in other words, a military attack." [LA Times, 10/3/02]

Bush says he's against timelines: "I don't think you give timelines to dictators." [President Bush, 8/27/04]

29. The Great Lakes

Bush wants to divert great lakes: "Even though experts say 'diverting any water from the Great Lakes region sets a bad precedent' Bush 'said he wants to talk to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrtien about piping water to parched states in the west and southwest.' [AP, 7/19/01]

Bush says he'll never divert Great Lakes: "We've got to use our resources wisely, like water. It starts with keeping the Great Lakes water in the Great Lakes Basin...My position is clear: We're never going to allow diversion of Great Lakes water." [President Bush, 8/16/04]

30. Winning The War On Terror

Bush claims he can win the war on terror: "One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we're asking questions, is, can you ever win the war on terror? Of course, you can." [President Bush, 4/13/04]

Bush says war on terror is unwinnable: "I don't think you can win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/30/04]

Bush says he will win the war on terror: "Make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/31/04]