Image 01 Image 03

John Kerry supported Iraq War everywhere but in his own memory

John Kerry supported Iraq War everywhere but in his own memory

WaPo Four Pinnochios Kerry

He just keeps saying it.

“You know, Senator Chuck Hagel, when he was senator, Senator Chuck Hagel, now secretary of defense, and when I was a senator, we opposed the president’s decision to go into Iraq, but we know full well how that evidence was used to persuade all of us that authority ought to be given.”

— Secretary of State John F. Kerry, in an interview with MSNBC, Sept. 5, 2013

Glenn Kessler at WaPo awards Kerry four Pinnochios:

Many politicians have a tendency to look back at their past statements with rose-colored glasses. But given that Kerry has now twice in recent months made the claim that he opposed the war in Iraq, this is clearly not a case of a momentary slip-up.

For Kerry, the uncomfortable fact remains that he voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq, he believed the intelligence that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and he said there was little choice but to launch an invasion to disarm him. Kerry may have been highly critical of Bush’s diplomatic efforts in advance of the invasion, but that is not the same thing as opposing the war when it started.

It’s time for the secretary to stop making this claim. In trying to make a distinction between his vote to authorize the war and his later dismay at how it turned out, Kerry earns Four Pinocchios.



Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Any way you slice it, you just can’t put lipstick on a pig.

Theodore Roosevelt’s foreign policy: “speak softly, and carry a big stick.”

Obama’s foreign policy: “speak stupidly, and hope for the best”

Kerry can’t get 4 Pinocchios because HE IS Pinocchio!

Yeah, but it’s such an “unbelievably small” lie!

Considering that the whole point of getting Congressional approval (now that the War Powers Act is moribund) is to get them on record so that they can’t say later they were against it, Kerry’s lies are most annoying. They also don’t serve his purposes well.

I watched the run-up to the invasion of Iraq very carefully, because I had friends whose sons would go in harm’s way. I went out of my way to find alternative points of view. At the time, I lived just north of DC and subscribed to the Washington Post. I listened to the hearings.

There was a consensus on the part of our politicians, both parties, that this was action that had to be taken. Had there been anybody with a strong rational alternative, I would have backed that person, loudly.

The Washington Post did oppose the invasion, on the grounds that personal property would be destroyed, and people would be killed. Everyone acknowledged that this would be true, but was, unfortunately, not dispositive of the issue.

It was decisive to me that the Democratic Party supported that invasion as necessary. Sen. John Kerry was one of them.

    Crawford in reply to Valerie. | September 10, 2013 at 1:49 pm

    Keep in mind that Democrat support for American military action ends the moment it becomes convenient for them.

    Valerie in reply to Valerie. | September 10, 2013 at 2:06 pm

    Democrats. In their own words. This is a Hannity compilation, because I can’t the one I was looking for.

    The weird thing is, there are Democratic voters who disbelieve that the Democrats never supported the war in Iraq. I know, because I sent a similar compilation of clips to my father in about 2007, and he told me that it was “BS.”

    I watched the whole process. This is true. This happened.

Didn’t Lurch Kerry vote against the war, along with a majority of Dems, and then demand a do-over when they read the polls that the American people were behind this effort?
They voted a second time for the resolution in favor of action and turned against it as soon as action began.

    Valerie in reply to mackykam. | September 10, 2013 at 2:12 pm

    The Democratic Party, under the leadership of Tom Daschle, and AFTER voting for the invasion of Iraq, decided to “ride the Iraq War all the way to the White House.”

    They blamed the Bush administration for “lying” to them, but in point of fact, the appropriate US Senate and the US House Committees have access to the SAME intelligence as the White House. Their claim, that they helplessly relied on the White House interpretation of the intelligence, was a lie. Their responsibility and prerogative was to independently evaluate the intelligence.

    They did not oppose the invasion of Iraq until after it was authorized and most of the preparation had been done.

Kerry’s memory is written in pencil.

He writes softly, and carries a big eraser.

Clearly, the Washington Post is “Swift Boating” Secretary Kerry

    2nd Ammendment Mother in reply to Neo. | September 10, 2013 at 2:52 pm

    I’m surprised they didn’t give Kerry a Pinocchio for failing to back up Obama’s claim that he didn’t draw a red line later the same day.

Kerry threw his Vietnam medals over the White House fence, but then they reappeared framed on his wall.

Kerry opposed the Iraq war, and opposed the approval that he himself gave.

John Kerry, whichever way the wind blows. (the Bush ad with windsurfing Kerry)

    nomadic100 in reply to Midwest Rhino. | September 10, 2013 at 3:24 pm

    I remember odd things. Actually, Kerry threw SOMEONE ELSE’S medals over the White House fence and only pretended they were his. That is true! Just an every day Kerry mendacity.

      NeoConScum in reply to nomadic100. | September 10, 2013 at 8:59 pm

      Yep, and decades later, while pissing & moaning about Iraq(after the fact)from the Senate floor, he said that a night on his swift boat IN CAMBODIA, “is seared..Seared into my memory..” Yep, John-John, but it NEVER happened as you NEVER were in Cambodia in those 3-months you were in VietNam Forty Some years ago. Report THAT for duty, you loathsome Punk.

Somebody should tell Kerry that lying makes your face swell up and look all puffy.

Soooooooooo, Loathsome John-John, lemme see if I get this nonsense straight. You didn’t view the aerial films of those thousands of Kurd civilians slaughtered by Saddam Hussein using WMD/Gas???

I’ve absolutely detested this piece of fecal excuse for
a Big Deal(Gag)Politician. Paaatoooooey.

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
— Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
— Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

Obama: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

– Interview with Charlie Savage, December 20, 2007