Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Yet you look at Kerry's record before 9/11 and pretend that he would go back to that time. I understand why this is appealing as propaganda, but if you really believe it then you're not being serious.
|
I'll accept the reasoning that we should limit our view of actions and words to that of the post 9/11 world. But get your boy to use the word "preemption when feasible and, if necessary, alone", or I simply don't buy it. That is a decent litmus test of security committment if America is to try and stay safe in the post 9/11 world. We can agree about enlarging the army (more money). Maybe not necessarily on expanding special forces (if it merely means lowering the standards for getting through Ranger school, then the new guys aren't so special). Certainly on engaging our allies, old and new, without giving anyone a veto. But of those 60 countries referenced in the post, is Kerry willing to take preemptive action in any one? If so, under what circumstances?
Maybe Bush has an unfair advantage insofar as we know he's crazy enough to do it because he's done it in the past. He can't articulate anything to save his life unless he's reading from a script (but hey, who can). But all Kerry needed to do was talk about what he's willing to do in a worst case of necessary prevention. All I've heard him say is what he'll try to do to avoid acting preemptively unilaterally. Is he willing to do it should it be deemed necessary to avoid harm to our nation?
Hello
