The Great Equivocator II, Wrong Even w/ Hindsight?

These are the opening paragraphs of just two of the many, many news reports from August 9, 2004 and August 10, 2004 from those covering the Great Equivocator, Sen. John F. Kerry:

GRAND CANYON, Ariz. (Reuters, Aug. 9) - Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found.

Taking up a challenge from President Bush, whom he will face in the Nov. 2 election, the Massachusetts senator said: "I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority." (End of excerpt from first news story.)


In Hindsight, Kerry Says He'd Still Vote for War
By Jim VandeHei, Washington Post Staff Writer, Tuesday, August 10, 2004

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Ariz., Aug. 9 -- Responding to President Bush's challenge to clarify his position, Sen. John F. Kerry said Monday that he still would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq even if he had known then that U.S. and allied forces would not find weapons of mass destruction. (End of excerpt from second news story.)

Google "Kerry Grand Canyon 2004" if you want to see a gazillion other news accounts.

So, on April 22, 2006, Sen. John F. Kerry spoke out against the war in Iraq (Kerry takes same stance on different war, Speaks against Iraq conflict, Boston Globe, April 23, B4).

With all of the intelligence he receives as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, with all of his foreign affairs gravitas (geesh, this is so laughable), with all of the input from seasoned advisors, with the benefit of 17 months of hindsight, on August 9, 2004, Sen. Kerry said, knowing everything he knew then, he would have still voted for the war in Iraq.

Of course, I think the Senator was right (whether he truly believed in his vote or if he was just too cowardly to stand-up for what he really believed) in October, 2002 and I think he was right (again, if he really believed this or whether he just said it because he was trying to get elected and he thought this was the position to have regardless of what he honestly believed) on August 9, 2004.

And, naturally, the attending liberal media at the April 22, 2006 event didn't ask the Senator to explain his August 9, 2004 statement. They simply allowed him to pander; it is absolutely what the Senator does best.