| Adder |
09-27-2004 11:42 PM |
Bill Kristol must read my rants
These are probably not worth responding to, but what the hell.
Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
From Newsmax:
[list]Among the more egregious of the tragicomic whoppers noted:
Kerry now claims the "most important task" is to win the "war on terrorism." Yet Kerry, speaking to his pets at the New York Times in March, refused to call the war on terror a war, RNC recalled.
Kerry then: "The final victory in the war on terror depends on a victory in the war of ideas, much more than the war on the battlefield. And the war - not the war, I don’t want to use that terminology."
|
Outside of Afghanistan, it isn't a war in any sense other than that it will take a prolonged, concerted effort. It is an intelligence/law enforcement action. "War on terrorism" is nothing more than shorthand, which is how Kerry used it in the first quote above.
Quote:
Kerry now claims Iraq was a "diversion from" the war on terror. On Dec. 15 he said: "Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror."
|
You mean that at one point, he believed that the Administration wasn't lying to him, and therefore over estimated the risk that Saddam posed? Yeah, well. So did a lot of people.
Quote:
Kerry now claims Saddam Hussein's evil was not enough to justify war. Here's what he said in a speech July 29, 2002:
"I agree completely with this administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq – Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991."
|
This statement in no way implies that Saddam's "evil" was not enough to justify war. Great reporting they have over there are Newsmax.
Quote:
Kerry now claims Saddam’s "downfall ... has left America less secure."
|
It quite obviously has.
Quote:
Oopsy: Here's his anti-Dean, anti-Saddam stand in December 2003, according to Newsday:
"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."
|
These two statement are not inconsistent. Iraq and the world are clearly better off. And we are arguably safer with a captured rather than free Sadam. Neither of these means that an unstable Iraq and even more pissed off Arabs don't make us less secure.
Quote:
Kerry now claims the decision to go into Iraq was a "colossal" failure. Yet on Aug. 9, Kerry said that had he known then what he knew now, he would still have voted for the use-of-force resolution, according to CNN:
"Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it's the right authority for a president to have. But I would have used that authority, as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively."
|
Leaving aside how a decision could be a collosal failure (quality journalism, to be sure), again, these are not inconsistent. Our execution in Iraq has been poor to say the least. That is not to say that it could not have been done effectively (i.e. not unilaterally).
Quote:
Kerry now claims Saddam was not a "threat to our security." Here's what he said in January 2003, according to the L.A. Times: "If you don't believe ... Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."
|
Again, not inconsistent. Notice the major qualifier on the second statement (hint: no "nucular" weapons)
Quote:
Kerry now claims Saddam's "capability to acquire weapons" was not reason enough for war. Yet according to the Congressional Record of Oct. 9, 2002, he called those who would leave the Iraqi dictator alone "naive to the point of grave danger."
And so on and so forth.
|
Again, there is the little intervening matter of the quality of our intelligence/veractity of the administration. |
