“Flip, Flop, Flip, Flop, Flip, Flop, Flip, Flop….”

That’s the only thing people know about Kerry’s position on Iraq. Here’s a sampling of what Kerry’s had to say over the last two years for you to compare with what he says tonight :

“It may well be that the United States will go to war with Iraq. But if so, it should be because we have to — not because we want to. For the American people to accept the legitimacy of this conflict and give their consent to it, the Bush administration must first present detailed evidence of the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and then prove that all other avenues of protecting our nation’s security interests have been exhausted. Exhaustion of remedies is critical to winning the consent of a civilized people in the decision to go to war.
. . .
For the sake of our country, the legitimacy of our cause and our ultimate success in Iraq, the administration must seek advice and approval from Congress, laying out the evidence and making the case. Then, in concert with our allies, it must seek full enforcement of the existing cease-fire agreement from the United Nations Security Council. We should at the same time offer a clear ultimatum to Iraq before the world: Accept rigorous inspections without negotiation or compromise.”

- New York Times, September 6, 2002

“As the President made clear earlier this week, “Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.” It means “America speaks with one voice.”

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days–to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent–and I emphasize “imminent”–threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.”

- senate Floor, October 9, 2002

“Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don’t have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.
. . .
And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation’s participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution’s decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition.”

- Georgetown University, January 23, 2003

?I am gratified the Administration finally came to the United Nations and made its case to the world. I’ve said that the hard diplomatic work and the work of educating America and the world were too long in coming. The road could have been easier had we chosen a multilateral strategy from the beginning, but nonetheless I am glad we’ve reached this moment in our diplomacy.
. . .
It is…incumbent on the Bush Administration to maximize international support so as many countries as possible share in the burden and costs of actions to come, and that the Administration makes clear its plans to deal with the aftermath of a post-Saddam Iraq and for continued efforts in the war against terrorism.?

- Press Release, February 6, 2003

“The Administration’s indifference to diplomacy and the manner in which it has treated friend and foe alike over the past several months have left this country with vastly reduced influence throughout the world, made impossible the assembly of a broad, multinational effort against Saddam Hussein, and dramatically increased the costs of fulfilling our legitimate security obligations at home and around the world.
. . .
In my estimation, giving the world thirty additional days for additional real multilateral coalition building - a real summit, not a five hour flyby with most of the world’s powers excluded — would have been prudent and no impediment to our military situation, an assessment with which our top military brass apparently agree. ”

- March 17, 2003

“I think that $87 billion should not be granted as just a rubber check to this president without several things. Number one, we need to know that this president is going to do what is necessary to truly protect our troops and to truly advance our ability to be successful, which means internationalizing our effort. It means properly going to the United Nations and ceding a measure of authority for two of the three parts of this mission. There is a humanitarian component, there is the governance- infrastructure component, both of which could be put within the U.N. as we did in East Timor, in Kosovo and Bosnia. And then there’s the security component, where we can keep American command over the critical pieces, but shared with the United Nations. Unless we do that, this president runs the risk of turning this into a quagmire potential of Vietnam.”

- senate Debate, September 9, 2003

“The power entrusted to the President gave him a strong hand to play in the international community. The idea was simple. We would get the weapons inspectors back in to verify whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And we would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam: disarm or be disarmed.

A month before the war, President Bush told the nation: ?If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail.? He said that military action wasn?t ?unavoidable.?

Instead, the President rushed to war without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work. He went without a broad and deep coalition of allies. He acted without making sure our troops had enough body armor. And he plunged ahead without understanding or preparing for the consequences of the post-war. None of which I would have done.”

- New York University, September 20, 2004

There’s a reason the Bush Campaign’s only hope of beating Kerry is to smear him as a flip-flopper : Kerry’s clear and consistent message is devastating for George Bush.