Replies

Hindsight - Does the candidate Kerry have a crystal ball to tell him if a "threat is imminent"? How easily he takes what we know now for "what he would do" now - question is how would he have reacted on 9/11 and then how would he have fought the war - since he is such an expert on the art of war, Kerry would have dismissed any General's plan to execute the war in Iraq as only Kerry and his 3 MONTHS+12 DAYS IN VIETNAM - THAT'S RIGHT - THE FIRST MONTH WAS SPENT IN TRAINING know how to wage war........
Kerry does not understand Terrorism nor does he know how to fight them...maybe John Edwards would just sue them...America cannot afford nor trust the Johns, let alone their life styles.

bump!

BACK TO THE FUTURE

The most obvious problem with John Kerry's argument is that it is fallacious. Mr. Kerry engages in ex post facto reasoning when he argues, "We should not have gone to war, knowing the information we know today.... I would not have gone to war knowing there was no imminent threat, weapons of mass destruction, there was no connection with al Qaeda and to Saddam Hussein."

As if the commander-in-chief enjoys the luxury of retroactive decision-making....

In this post-9/11 world, a commander-in-chief has to make decisions of war and peace, life and death, based on imperfect information. We cannot afford in that position someone who requires certain knowledge of outcome before acting. We cannot afford in that position someone who views the War on Terror as not war but criminal enterprise. We cannot afford in that position a weak-kneed vacillator like John Kerry. Is there any doubt that John Kerry would never act preemptively to protect America?

Mia T
Diane Sawyer Nails Kerry Peril
PREEMPTION + KERRY'S EX POST FACTO REASONING