On Kerry and Iraq:
At a rally Tuesday night in Las Vegas, Mr. Kerry said he had been “consistent all along,'’ and added: “I thought the United States needed to stand up to Saddam Hussein, and I voted to stand up to Saddam Hussein. But I thought we ought to do it right.’
Ok, there are, as I have noted a number of times, plenty of areas in which criticisms can be levied at Bush and his Iraq policy. However, as I have also noted, I tire of Kerry simply saying things like he will do Iraq “right” or “better” or by “showing leadership.” Platitudes aren’t policy.
Further, if one does try to piece together what Kerry may mean by doing it “right” one must conclude that he simply means more international help. Now, the only logical conclusion to reach from that fact is that Kerry ultimately would have backed down from “stand[ing] up to Saddam Hussein” because he would never have been able to get France, Germany and the Arab world to fully participate in any invasion. As such, what a President Kerry would have done was make empty threats and then sent inspectors back in. Now, perhaps that was the right thing to do, but that is hardly “stand[ing] up” to Hussein–indeed, it would have been essentially the status quo of the time. Such a policy would simply have been a series of very public empty threats.
These kinds of pronouncement from the Senator continue to confirm my view that he really does not have a firm position on Iraq, that both his votes (for the resolution and against the $87 billion) were both political calculations, and that he is trying to say whatever he thinks the swing voters want to hear.
It just doesn’t add up, does it? Back in the Primaries, I was seriously considering voting for Kerry. From all I could tell, it looked like his legislative agenda would be essentially the same as the President’s, and I was willing to sacrifice a little to get the hard left to shut the hell up for four years.
But my big question all along was, “Given a situation where our so-called ‘allies’ simply refuse to back us up, will Kerry act ‘unilaterally’ to do what’s right?” You have to kind of squint to phrase the question, because to Kerry “allies” means France, Germany and Russia, and “unilaterally” means without France, Germany and Russia. But bottom line, does France get a veto power over US national security objectives?
It seems pretty clear that Kerry’s answer is either “yes” or “maybe,” neither of which is okay by me. Bush has put his position right out there in front: I did it, and I’d do it again. That’s good enough for me.
(This was all before Kerry announced his trillion-plus-dollar legislative agenda with no plan to pay for it other than anally violating not even the rich but the merely above average. Thanks but no thanks, Senator.)
Comment by Jeff Harrell — Wednesday, August 11, 2024 @ 8:25 am