Here is John Kerry’s speech in Cincinnati. It was tauted as a serious statement on foreign policy. You be the judge. I say this will not do, Mr. Kerry. Say something, say anything interesting. Say something that I disagree with, that’s O.K. But, please make a point, preferably one that differs from the president, especially on matters having to do with peace and war. Maybe it’s just that you are so sophisticated that I am incapable of picking up the thrust of your argument. I’m trying and I’m waiting. But this will not do.
Compare Kerry’s self-serving assertion in Cincinnati that our troops are "the best of America" with his opposite claim in 1971--that the war protesters were the best of America. Has he recanted?
i think that kerry made a perfectly good statement...that he hopes to repair the damage done by bush(good luck with that). in fact i find it hard enough to sit thourgh the speeches without having to hear ridicoulous comments! i say your fighting a losing battle.
Didn’t Kerry himself vote FOR going to war in Iraq when it was brought before Congress? And now he’s stating if he had been President that he would have waited to go... Flip-flopping again, Mr. Kerry???
I congratulate the GOP’ers on this blog; your message discipline is amazing. FLIP FLOP! FLIP FLOP!
As to Peter’s questions about Kerry’s position from his speech (edited for length):
I would have given the inspectors the time they needed before rushing to war.
I would have built a genuine coalition of allies.
I would have listened to our senior military leaders in this country.
I would never have gone to war without a plan to win the peace.
Granted, Peter, I don’t actually listen to your guy anymore either...
1. The inspectors were hoodwinked the entire time. And, 12 years of peace treaty violations are not exactly rushing off to war. 2. Building a coalition of allies is something that we DID. OTHER countries were unwilling to go to war for various reasons, some of which were ribald self-interest. How would you get France and Germany to join the coalition? 3. There obviously was a plan to win the peace, but there are also unforeseen circumstances in every war. Our modern assessment for a successful war seems to be one day of strategic bombing to earn victory, zero U.S. casualties, and eternal bliss afterwards. Welcome to the real world. But, to argue that there was NO plan is simply absurd.
But, of course, none of this addresses what John Kerry would have done or would do in Iraq. I’m with Peter, I don’t know what the guy would do. I’ve heard the speeches, gone to the website, but I still don’t know. I would love a clear position that even a dummy like me can understand.
If Kerry (or his people) were smart he’d just shut up about foreign policy. It’s going to hang him. The only place the President is vulnerable is on the domestic side. But Kerry is too much of an ego to back down from any issue...
What I find particularly ironic, is that the supporters of Kerry on this thread, are criticizing Bush for having "no plan to win the peace" (which is absurd), while their own candidate doesn’t even know how to talk about the issue. Gee, that would just fill me with confidence on Kerry decisive leadership...