Posted on 07/29/2004 8:35:15 AM PDT by churchillbuff
Here's from Andrew Sullivan's blog this morning (in which he calls himself a "pro-war neocon" - go figure):
Edwards gave an immensely tough, hawkish pro-war speech. They really are pulling a Kennedy in 1960. One passage stood out, resplendent:
""We will lead strong alliances. We will safeguard and secure our weapons of mass destruction. We will strengthen our homeland security, protect our ports, protect our chemical plants, and support our firefighters, police officers, EMTs. We will always... We will always use our military might to keep the American people safe. And we, John and I, we will have one clear unmistakable message for Al Qaida and these terrorists: You cannot run. You cannot hide. We will destroy you.""
(By way of comparison, here's what yours truly, a pro-war neocon, proposed Kerry should say last Sunday night: To the murderers of al Qaeda, let me say this. Do not even begin to interpret a Democratic victory as some sign that we will acquiesce to your murderous intent and nihilist politics. In the war against Jihadism, there is no Democrat or Republican. There is simply American. We will unite to defeat you and to secure our country.)
But there was more. Edwards committed his party to victory in Iraq:
""With a new president who strengthens and leads our alliances, we can get NATO to help secure Iraq. We can ensure that Iraq's neighbors, like Syria and Iran, don't stand in the way of a democratic Iraq. We can help Iraq's economy by getting other countries to forgive their enormous debt and participate in the reconstruction. We can do this for the Iraqi people. We can do it for our own soldiers. And we will get this done right. A new president will bring the world to our side, and with it a stable Iraq, a real chance for freedom and peace in the Middle East, including a safe and secure Israel. Howard Dean may spin that as a way to bring troops home. But Edwards also pledged more troops and more defense spending as a whole. I fail to see how Joe Lieberman could quibble with much that was in Edwards' address.""
FYI. Whether Edwards and Kerry are telling the truth about their Iraq policy or not, what they're saying is a lot closer to your guys' position than to mine.
Do you believe Kerry is teling the truth? Do you believe he supports Bush's operation of the Battle of Iraq?
Wonder how the Dean faction will respond to this. As we know from his political history, Kerry always stays on course when the road gets rough.
And if they're lying, what's the point?
The link is http://www.andrewsullivan.com/
He's for the Two Johns for one reason: they are pro-homosexual marriage.
Period.
Unless you go to Iraq.
"You cannot hide."
Unless you're in Iraq.
We will destroy you.
Unless you're in Iraq.
I'd say that sums up the Kerry/Edwards position nicely.
Sorry, girlie-boy Edwards, a far greater man than you already said that. Can't you even be original?
The problem is, and the thing that Sullivan fails to understand is that the Dems use this "tough talk" only as a means of getting elected. They won't follow through. That's the reason for Kerry's flip flopping on Iraq.
Oh, I think it's easy to understand why Andrew is so fond of John Edwards. Very easy. Has nothing to do with logic, policy, or background.
I'm mean, where's the obligatory photo?
May I suggest one of him in a pink tutu?
I have very little respect remaining for Andrew Sullivan, whose primary goal seems to be getting the government to affirm the particular manner in which he achieves orgasm as absolutely spectacular. Of course, for the swing voters, the Kerry/Edwards team is talking relatively hawkish and responsibly about the war on Terror and Iraq, but can we trust how they will act in practice, given Kerry's speaking on both sides of hundreds of issues, his weak voting history on national security matters, and the chance that there may be new challenges, e.g., other terror attacks, Iran, North Korea, in the next four years?
In Kerry's case, of course, he is pro-gay-"marriage", but it must be pointed out that he has once again done some insincere pandering to both sides of the issue by in theory coming out against gay "marriage" while not being willing to do anything about it in practice.
Off-topic question...but is Chritopher Hitchens on vacation, or AWOL this week?..have you seen anything from him about the DNC?
I have very little respect remaining for Andrew Sullivan, whose primary goal seems to be getting the government to affirm the particular manner in which he achieves orgasm as absolutely spectacular. Of course, for the swing voters, the Kerry/Edwards team is talking relatively hawkish and responsibly about the war on Terror and Iraq, but can we trust how they will act in practice, given Kerry's speaking on both sides of hundreds of issues, his weak voting history on national security matters, and the chance that there may be new challenges, e.g., other terror attacks, Iran, North Korea, in the next four years?
Maybe, but it's interesting that a lot of Freepers were high on Sullivan - until he started criticizing Bush. They were willing to overlook his depraved positions on other issues. Not me - not then, not now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.