Skip to comments.Channeling Howard Dean
Posted on 09/23/2004 11:45:56 AM PDT by GarnetGirl04
Last December, when Howard Dean was riding high among Democrats for his denunciation of the war in Iraq, another candidate for his party's presidential nomination attacked Dean as weak on foreign policy.
Speaking at Drake University in Des Moines, John Kerry blasted "those in my own party who threaten to take us down a road of confusion and retreat." In response to Dean's assertion that the capture of Iraq's dictator hadn't made America safer, Kerry said: "Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president of the United States." ...
So it was bizarre, although not exactly shocking, to hear Kerry veer left during a speech on Monday: "We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure ..." he said. "Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions, and if we do not change course, there is a prospect of a war with no end in sight."
Kerry, who knows a few things about changing course, evidently believes he and his Senate colleagues were right to give President Bush the authority to wage war, but that Bush was wrong to use the authority. What's more, he suggested, under Bush, we may be losing that war.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Nice find, good read.
You can never find a candidate who you agree with 100%, but I want a candidate who states and defends his/her positions with clarity. Kerry is so obviously a spineless nothing with no core beliefs whatsoever. As Dennis Miller said, Kerry wakes up each morning, rubs the sleep from his eyes, and asked if anyone has a 3x5 card with his core beliefs on it.
In my opinion, the John Kerry of 2004 is moral a coward.
Kerry would be smart to get Wesley Clark as far away from his as possible. Clark is one of the least impressive flag officers I have ever seen. Not as bad as Karpinski, but that aint saying much.
The man is an outrageous liar. Period. May he go down in flames.
He did give a tortured explanation of his yes vote -- it was authority for more weapon inspectors (12 years wasn't enough?), authority to ask the UN and build a coalition (Kerry must have been on vacation when that happened), authority to NOT go to war (who knew you needed congressional authority to not go to war?).
I have to give Kerry credit for finally (?) deciding on a message, however, he always sounds slightly defensive. He refers to himself being inaugurated in January, but refuses to answer "hypothetical" questions. Asked about real events of today, he just complains "I'm not the president, he's the president."
Someone probably could have ridden an anti-Iraq war all the way to the Whitehouse, but I sure hope it isn't this jack*ss.
The Iraq War and the war on terror are linked in the public's mind.
Nobody's going to the White House spewing pessimism and defeat about the War on Terror.
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.