[GulliverSwift]

I never said that he'd have invaded it. He'd have done something, though. Because as a Democrat, he needs to protect the legacy of Clinton. Clinton let Saddam fester and even Kerry would have done something (no matter how poorly) to address it.

It's dangerous to our country that one of the two major political parties has no foreign policy positions aside from "get the UN involved," which means absolutely nothing since our country would have to present some sort of position at the debate. I applaud Friedman for trying to kick his fellow Dims in the rear and wake them up to reality. It's a rarity these days coming from a committed Democrat.

[hershey]

Kerry would have gone, hat in hand, to France and the rest of that spineless crowd at the UN, offered endless compromises and bags of money if Muslims would just be nice. For years, France has paid Arab govt's extortion money so they wouldn't blow up Paris. Kerry would have done the same, and we'd have gasoline at $3.50 per gallon in no time. Plus, he's already saying we'd be conserving energy so we wouldn't have to send troops overseas to make the Arabs behave. Does this sound familiar? Can we all spell....C...A...R...T...E...R?

[okie01]

"I applaud Friedman for trying to kick his fellow Dims in the rear and wake them up to reality. It's a rarity these days coming from a committed Democrat."

Unfortunately, by cueing Kerry to be forcefully bipartisan and pro-American, Friedman is merely peeing in the wind...

[okie01]

And, even if Kerry said what Friedman wants, who would believe him?