A Trip Down Memory Lane With John Kerry:

Archives are an amazing thing. It lets you explore things like, well, how consistent any single politician has been on any subject. Bush flaps his arms like a parrot with his wings cut and says, endlessly, that Kerry "doesn't know where he stands" on Iraq. The problem here is that Kerry has been remarkably consistent in his views, going back nearly a decade:



From the Boston Globe, September 4, 1996: On President Clinton's decision to bomb Iraq for its recent assaults on a Kurdish area, Kerry said, "I approve of the actions taken by the President. I do believe we have to take tough action with Saddam. It's the only language he understands."



From the Boston Globe, February 23, 1998: "Senator John F. Kerry . . . said yesterday that the United States should use ground troops to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein if he does not comply with international demands to give up chemical and biological weapons . . . Kerry said sending U.S. troops into Iraq should be 'the last option, but it is a legitimate option.' He said the United States should aim to remove Hussein only 'within the framework of international law -- in other words, if he remains obdurate and in violation of the United Nations resolutions, and in a position of threat to the world community.



"Kerry said his conditional support for using ground troops put him 'way ahead of the commander in chief, and I'm probably way ahead of my colleagues, and certainly much of the country' . . . Kerry said his position on Iraq is consistent with his Vietnam War experience. 'The lessons I learned are that if you're going to commit young people to fight, make sure you've got an objective and it's achievable, and it meets the needs of your country.'"



And, for shits and giggles, here's Kerry on terrorism, its threat, and solutions:

From the Boston Globe, August 3, 1996: On the Republican-led House of Representatives' version of an anti-terrorism bill, Kerry said many tools such as more extensive wiretap techniques and guerilla tactics were included in the Senate version of the bill, but removed by the House in the name of civil liberties and saving money: "There is a much larger confrontation with the Republican agenda. They are, 'Cut, cut, cut,' pretending you don't have to do anything."



From CNN, September 12, 2001: Kerry said, "I have no doubt in my mind it's Osama Bin Laden. . . It's very much in keeping with the threats he has made. The intelligence community has known all summer they have building up for some kind of attack."



"Kerry said a number of attempted attacks, or plans for attacks, have been 'thwarted' this summer. He said he was briefed by CIA Director George Tenet on this a few weeks ago."



This has been the problem all along in Kerry failing to run on his record in the Senate - he was a motherfucking statesman, a real one, who grappled with real issues, for years. He didn't go from 'Nam to presidential candidate. Kerry's own words are the clearest rejoinder to charges that he has lacked clear positions on Iraq. Kerry was a hawk, but a responsible hawk. He was not an appeaser. He was not beholden to his party. He just decided back then, and to this day, that we shouldn't dis the rest of the world, and we shouldn't, fer chrissake, run into this thing like a Peoria drag queen at make-up close-out day at the JC Penney's in the mall.



Keep On Bringin' It:

There's now well over a hundred suggestions for questions for the debate. Keep sendin' 'em to rudepundit@yahoo.com. Tomorrow, the best, the worst, the rudest.