/* News Ticker Head info ------------------------------------------------ */

Tuesday, September 07, 2004

Say Anything

I agree with John Kerry!!!!

Well, one of the John Kerrys running for president...though I'm not sure which one. John Kerry said: "And I also believe that those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not safer with his capture don’t have the judgment to be President – or the credibility to be elected President."

Right on Brother!

But that was the John Kerry who was asleep today. I get the feeling this guy actually is two (or maybe three) identical candidates...kinda like the old children's book where the kid wishes for a twin who would go out and do all the chores and go to school while he reads comics and watches TV and stuff. Or, to be a bit more contemporary, like the Olsen twins: two different people playing the same lovable character among a cast of goof-offs.

I think there are several different John Kerrys, and the editor in charge of story consistency and integrity is asleep at the switch. How else can you explaing this:

Would Have Voted the Same Way With No WMDs:
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. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I
would have used that authority effectively."

Maybe he would have funded it then...

On Funding for the Iraq War he Voted to Authorize
"I actually voted for [the funding] before I voted against it."

The Midnight Rant: (9/3/04)
"Worst of all, George Bush misled America when he took us to war in Iraq."

Ranting Continued: (9/7/04)
Iraq was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time."
And he would better demonstrate "the kind of statesmanship and leadership
that builds a true coalition to share the costs and share the burden."

Kerry’s foreign policy speech: (12/16/2003)
Saddam Hussein was a totalitarian who waged a reign of terror against his
people and repeatedly endangered the peace of the world. And no one can doubt
that we are safer – and Iraq is better – because Saddam Hussein is now behind

Iraq has been ground zero in that ideological tug of war, with difficult
decisions that had to be made, and complicated issues of national security that
had to be discussed with Americans honestly and responsibly.

When America needed leadership on Iraq, Howard Dean was all over the lot,
with a lot of slogans and a lot less solutions. One moment he supported
authorizing the use of force, the next he criticized those who did. He said
Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, then he said he’d figured out
that he didn’t. He said he opposed the war all along, but less than a month
before it began he said that if the U.N. wouldn’t enforce its own mandates, then
‘unilateralism is a regrettable, but unavoidable choice.’

And at other times, Governor Dean said that we should not go into Iraq
unless the UN Security council gave us authorization. That is a fundamental
misunderstanding of how a President protects the United States. I have said many
times I believe that America should have worked to get international backing
before going to war. Our diplomacy should have been as good as our soldiers. A
true international coalition would have been better for our troops, better for
our security, better for Iraq’s future. Perhaps it reflects inexperience, but
for Howard Dean to permit a veto over when America can or cannot act not only
becomes little more than a pretext for doing nothing – it cedes our security and
presidential responsibility to defend America to someone else -- a profound
danger for both our national security and global stability.

I believe it was right to hold Saddam Hussein accountable for violating UN
agreements. I believed then – and I believe now – authorizing force was the only
way to get inspectors in, and the only way ultimately to enforce Saddam
Hussein’s compliance with the mandate he had agreed to, knowing that as a last
resort war could become the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement

And I also believe that those who doubted whether Iraq or the world
would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not
safer with his capture don’t have the judgment to be President – or the
credibility to be elected President.

He didn't feel "misled" then, did he? He would have "done almost everything differently", but he seems pretty solid in a need to have done something in Iraq. In fact, he's been pro-military-intervention in Iraq since the first Gulf War. Unless there is a crowd that doesn't want to hear that, of course...


Post a Comment

<< Home