Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
I understand that. But once the "Kerry Bill" went down, he had a choice of (A) voting to fund based on a bill that he didn't love, but sending a message to the troops that he supports them, and (B) voting not to fund, and sending a message to the President that he disagreed with the method.* He chose (B).
*Go ahead an argue that this is the principled stand.
|
Leadership is more than a bunch of talking points about sending messages. This little episode sheds plenty of light on Karl Rove's genius in using the war on terror to marginalize opponents, but next to nothing on what Kerry will do as CIC. Except that he'll ask the rich to make sacrifices along with the soldiers, marines, National Guardsmen and Reservists serving in Iraq.
Quote:
|
It does not give aid and comfort, but it does undercut Allawi's, err, the other leader's, ability to govern and our efforts in that country. What he could have said was something like "I stand firmly behind [Leader] and look forward to working with em and the other leaders when I am president." That is all that needs to be said. He also should have met with the guy and had the decency to show up when he addressed the Senate.
|
If the President is going to enlist ostensibly sovereign foreign leaders as tools of his campaign, his challenger had better have the cojones to call bullshit, or he shouldn't be leading the country. You seem to think that Kerry should have unilaterally disarmed. In any event, the Iraqis already know that the guy is a puppet. They don't need him to come over here to figure that out.
Threaded Mode