Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Doesn't this work both ways? Does Kerry have an obligation to limit statements that encourage terrorist attacks on troops and Iraqis by indicating that difficulties will cause us to back down? Or, is his belief in the correctnes of his position sufficient cause for him to continue? If so, why doesn't the same hold true for Bush?
|
If Kerry were to actually say something that encourages a terrorist attack, I would have a real problem with that. I have no doubt that some of you guys actually believe that -- notwithstanding that we live in a democracy -- it is the duty of the rest of the country to keep quiet until the troops come home, but since most of the Republican leadership didn't see it that way when -- for example -- our troops were in harm's way in Albania and Serbia, I see things cynically.
If you really think, for example, that Kerry hurt our interests by criticizing Allawi as a puppet, then you also need to agree that Bush hurt our interests (first) by bringing Allawi to the United States to support his re-election campaign -- something that did nothing for Allawi in Iraq except make him look like a puppet -- and compounded the problem by having a campaign worker write Allawi's speeches for him. Once Bush left the barn door open, it was hardly wrong of Kerry to point it out.
Belief in the correctness of a position alone certainly doesn't make it right, as Dick Cheney did his best to illustrate for us on Tuesday.
Threaded Mode