adios
08-20-2004, 01:13 PM
Kerry should be focused on explaining how he would plan to extricate our troops from Iraq, rather than when. Instead, he has been frustratingly vague. This month, he evoked images of Richard Nixon's "secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam when he suggested he would be able to "put a deal together" to bring the war in Iraq to an end. When asked for evidence that a Kerry victory would lead to such a deal, Kerry and his Senate allies come up empty. "I can't give you the details of any deal, obviously," Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said. "You don't negotiate a deal until you have a leader who is there to negotiate a deal."
This would actually be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
As a younger man, Kerry had a surer moral compass. More than 30 years ago, the young Vietnam veteran expressed the anguish of millions of Americans when he asked members of the Senate Armed Services Committee: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Almost 14 years ago, the junior senator from Massachusetts questioned Washington's rush to war after Iraq had invaded Kuwait. "I know I can't look a parent in the eye . . . and say to them we've exhausted (a) peaceful resolution," Kerry said in December 1990. A month later, Kerry voted against the resolution authorizing then-President Bush to use force to expel Iraqi troops from Kuwait.
So now it has come to this: The same man who opposed the 1991 Persian Gulf War - a war in which U.S. forces led a genuine coalition in response to a genuine provocation - now strains to defend his vote in support of another gulf war being fought by a phantom coalition in response to a phantom threat.
I suppose what's going on here is that the Democrats know Kerry is waffling to try and embrace the middle of the road voters and feel that Kerry really doesn't believe his get tough and be tough rhetoric regarding Iraq. He's more or less winking at them when he panders .... er um ... presents his nuanced position.
Kerry's quicksand (http://www.sptimes.com/2004/08/19/Opinion/Kerry_s_quicksand.shtml)
Kerry's quicksand
The Democratic presidential nominee's views on the war in Iraq keep getting more confusing and contradictory.
A Times Editorial
Published August 19, 2004
Almost every time John Kerry opens his mouth on the subject of the war in Iraq, he disappoints millions of voters who hoped that his candidacy would offer a coherent and principled alternative to the Bush administration's blunders.
Earlier this month, in response to goading from President Bush, Kerry said he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing the president to go to war even if he had known at the time that the White House had grossly exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq. That position places Kerry in the same moral quicksand as the president, who continues to say he would have gone to war even if he had known then what we know now.
The president's convoluted efforts to justify a pre-emptive war against a nation that represented no immediate threat to the United States are disappointing but predictable. Whether out of stubbornness or political self-preservation, the president is determined to defend his original decision. Kerry's motivations are more difficult to fathom.
Unfortunately, this was no one-time slip-up for Kerry. His statements on Iraq have repeatedly produced confusion and dismay. After months of trying, Kerry still hasn't come up with a clear explanation for why he voted to authorize the president to go to war but then voted against authorizing the money needed to pay for the war.
Kerry also has begun to make rash promises. For months, he wisely resisted the urge to set a timetable for bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq. Now, though, he says he would have a goal of reducing our forces by August 2005. All Americans fervently hope our troops will be home before then. But wars can't be fought according to timetables.
Kerry should be focused on explaining how he would plan to extricate our troops from Iraq, rather than when. Instead, he has been frustratingly vague. This month, he evoked images of Richard Nixon's "secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam when he suggested he would be able to "put a deal together" to bring the war in Iraq to an end. When asked for evidence that a Kerry victory would lead to such a deal, Kerry and his Senate allies come up empty. "I can't give you the details of any deal, obviously," Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said. "You don't negotiate a deal until you have a leader who is there to negotiate a deal."
It stands to reason that a President Kerry might have a better chance of winning cooperation from traditional allies alienated by the Bush administration's war policies, but the Kerry camp hasn't been content to say that. Instead, Kerry has tried to have it both ways, defending his original prowar vote while making vague promises to antiwar voters.
As a younger man, Kerry had a surer moral compass. More than 30 years ago, the young Vietnam veteran expressed the anguish of millions of Americans when he asked members of the Senate Armed Services Committee: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Almost 14 years ago, the junior senator from Massachusetts questioned Washington's rush to war after Iraq had invaded Kuwait. "I know I can't look a parent in the eye . . . and say to them we've exhausted (a) peaceful resolution," Kerry said in December 1990. A month later, Kerry voted against the resolution authorizing then-President Bush to use force to expel Iraqi troops from Kuwait.
So now it has come to this: The same man who opposed the 1991 Persian Gulf War - a war in which U.S. forces led a genuine coalition in response to a genuine provocation - now strains to defend his vote in support of another gulf war being fought by a phantom coalition in response to a phantom threat.
President Bush has been wrong about Iraq, but at least he has been consistently wrong. For now, Kerry can be fairly accused of being both wrong and inconsistent on Iraq.
This would actually be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
As a younger man, Kerry had a surer moral compass. More than 30 years ago, the young Vietnam veteran expressed the anguish of millions of Americans when he asked members of the Senate Armed Services Committee: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Almost 14 years ago, the junior senator from Massachusetts questioned Washington's rush to war after Iraq had invaded Kuwait. "I know I can't look a parent in the eye . . . and say to them we've exhausted (a) peaceful resolution," Kerry said in December 1990. A month later, Kerry voted against the resolution authorizing then-President Bush to use force to expel Iraqi troops from Kuwait.
So now it has come to this: The same man who opposed the 1991 Persian Gulf War - a war in which U.S. forces led a genuine coalition in response to a genuine provocation - now strains to defend his vote in support of another gulf war being fought by a phantom coalition in response to a phantom threat.
I suppose what's going on here is that the Democrats know Kerry is waffling to try and embrace the middle of the road voters and feel that Kerry really doesn't believe his get tough and be tough rhetoric regarding Iraq. He's more or less winking at them when he panders .... er um ... presents his nuanced position.
Kerry's quicksand (http://www.sptimes.com/2004/08/19/Opinion/Kerry_s_quicksand.shtml)
Kerry's quicksand
The Democratic presidential nominee's views on the war in Iraq keep getting more confusing and contradictory.
A Times Editorial
Published August 19, 2004
Almost every time John Kerry opens his mouth on the subject of the war in Iraq, he disappoints millions of voters who hoped that his candidacy would offer a coherent and principled alternative to the Bush administration's blunders.
Earlier this month, in response to goading from President Bush, Kerry said he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing the president to go to war even if he had known at the time that the White House had grossly exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq. That position places Kerry in the same moral quicksand as the president, who continues to say he would have gone to war even if he had known then what we know now.
The president's convoluted efforts to justify a pre-emptive war against a nation that represented no immediate threat to the United States are disappointing but predictable. Whether out of stubbornness or political self-preservation, the president is determined to defend his original decision. Kerry's motivations are more difficult to fathom.
Unfortunately, this was no one-time slip-up for Kerry. His statements on Iraq have repeatedly produced confusion and dismay. After months of trying, Kerry still hasn't come up with a clear explanation for why he voted to authorize the president to go to war but then voted against authorizing the money needed to pay for the war.
Kerry also has begun to make rash promises. For months, he wisely resisted the urge to set a timetable for bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq. Now, though, he says he would have a goal of reducing our forces by August 2005. All Americans fervently hope our troops will be home before then. But wars can't be fought according to timetables.
Kerry should be focused on explaining how he would plan to extricate our troops from Iraq, rather than when. Instead, he has been frustratingly vague. This month, he evoked images of Richard Nixon's "secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam when he suggested he would be able to "put a deal together" to bring the war in Iraq to an end. When asked for evidence that a Kerry victory would lead to such a deal, Kerry and his Senate allies come up empty. "I can't give you the details of any deal, obviously," Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said. "You don't negotiate a deal until you have a leader who is there to negotiate a deal."
It stands to reason that a President Kerry might have a better chance of winning cooperation from traditional allies alienated by the Bush administration's war policies, but the Kerry camp hasn't been content to say that. Instead, Kerry has tried to have it both ways, defending his original prowar vote while making vague promises to antiwar voters.
As a younger man, Kerry had a surer moral compass. More than 30 years ago, the young Vietnam veteran expressed the anguish of millions of Americans when he asked members of the Senate Armed Services Committee: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Almost 14 years ago, the junior senator from Massachusetts questioned Washington's rush to war after Iraq had invaded Kuwait. "I know I can't look a parent in the eye . . . and say to them we've exhausted (a) peaceful resolution," Kerry said in December 1990. A month later, Kerry voted against the resolution authorizing then-President Bush to use force to expel Iraqi troops from Kuwait.
So now it has come to this: The same man who opposed the 1991 Persian Gulf War - a war in which U.S. forces led a genuine coalition in response to a genuine provocation - now strains to defend his vote in support of another gulf war being fought by a phantom coalition in response to a phantom threat.
President Bush has been wrong about Iraq, but at least he has been consistently wrong. For now, Kerry can be fairly accused of being both wrong and inconsistent on Iraq.