"This is the most arrogant, reckless, ideological foreign policy ever pursued in the modern times of our country," --John Kerry
"Staying the course is important ... But staying the wrong course is not a sign of strength -- it is a mark of stubbornness, and it ultimately weakens this nation and the world." --John Kerry
I don't recall Kerry offering many alternatives to the Bush Administration's decisions on foreign policy at a time when it could have made a difference. Furthermore, last time I checked, it was my government that was responsible for the whole "war on terror" thing --not just the commander in chief.
Forget the fact that Kerry will be the only alternative to Bush for the presidential race this year. The simple fact is that Kerry is one of the most powerful political figures in the country. What was he doing when these "arrogant" and "reckless" decisions were going on?
Oh ya! He was helping to run the country, that's what.
Can you say Monday morning quarterback?
And in the second quote, he hints that Bush has taken the wrong course in Iraq, yet he fails to pinpoint anything. What a nice way to pander to the anti-Bush people without actually having to identify any real problem.
A little advice to Kerry: Let your record speak for itself. Heck, even flaunt it if you've got to. Just don't criticize in hindsight and hedge your bets for the sole purpose of political gain. Does he not have a solid, post 9/11 history to fall back on, or does he just think a Monday morning quarterback campaign will pave the way to the Whitehouse?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
>last time I checked, it was my government that was responsible for the whole "war on terror" thing --not just the commander in chief.
Actually, if you recall, shortly after 9/11 Congress gave Bush sole discretion to wage war in direct contravention to the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution, which places that power in the hands of Congress to preserve the system of 'checks and balances'. It could be argued, if we lived in saner times, that this was an illegal act, certainly unconstitutional, possibly treasonous.
Check your facts: Bush has a history over the past two years of initiating many martial acts without the consent, approval, or even knowledge of Congress -- he was given carte blanche, and the political climate being what it is those in Congress who disagree with his actions aren't likely to comment on it lest they be branded soft on terrorism.
Kerry isn't going to solve all of those problems... in fact, the can of worms is so messy right now that I think you'd have to be a complete idiot to even *want* to run for president. It's a lose-lose situation... if he does everything 'right', he'll be seen as the person who backed down from Bush's great military conquest, and if he continues it he becomes the next Lyndon Johnson.
As for failing to pinpoint exactly what Bush has done wrong in Iraq, I think there is a strong case for the maxim "if you don't already know, you'll never figure it out". Different people have different value systems... some want revenge for 9/11 (and misguidedly assume that what we are doing in Iraq has *anything* at all to do with that issue... see Colin Powell's comments last week regarding the lack of *any* corroborating data linking Saddam to al Queda), some want an excuse to wave the flag, some (like Cheney, for instance) want more American tax money diverted into their bank accounts.
As for arrogance and recklessness, those speak for themselves... in the past few years we've gone from having the French newspapers headline "We are all Americans" after 9/11 to today, when even our staunchest allies are pretending they don't know who we are, after we've told them in no uncertain terms that they either support us unequivocally as we send their troops to die for uncertain gains, or we punish them with trade embargoes and tariffs. Our standing in the world community is at it's lowest since the last world war, and this has all happened in the last 3 years. In that light, it's pretty hard *not* to criticize Bush.
Kerry is an unknown, but Bush is a known disaster. It's an easy choice, if you want to still have a prosperous country a generation from now.
Perhaps you're talking about the Iraq War Resolution. Kerry gave that his blessing. By your reasoning, he contributed to the problem. I haven't blamed him for anything but running a poor campaign.
Being soft or hard on terrorism isn’t really the issue here –being EFFECTIVE is. The American people will reward leaders they feel are able to achieve this. That unequivocally includes going against the Bush administration if it’s necessary.
I’m optimistic and idealistic enough to say that tough times like this produce and require great leaders. There’s not much room there for “complete idiots.” Tough times in just about any nation’s history have produced great leaders. Why should this be any different?
There's no question the Bush administration has made some very big mistakes in Iraq. That’s not the point. Kerry is playing the roll of Monday morning quarterback. Which begs the question: What have you done in post 9/11 to divert these problems? Or maybe hitting a bit closer to home: why did you vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution?
I don’t know where you get your news, but Powell said no such thing.
Did you just use the words "staunchest allies" and French in the same sentence? *Cough* oil-for-food *cough* Good grief. If tariffs are the worst thing we dish out to France, then they've gotten off too easy. France isn’t entitled to get business from the United States.
I remember seeing Palestinians dancing in the streets just minutes after the trade centers fell. Was that due to Bush's post 9/11 recklessness? Perhaps his arrogance?
There's no doubt our foreign policy has prompted a lot of anti-American feelings in the world. But it's no more Bush's fault than it is Clinton's. If Kerry was the incumbent, America wouldn’t be viewed differently either.
I have enough faith in my country to say that a "known disaster" wouldn't be neck and neck with the opposing candidate. That’s because Bush isn’t.
Post a Comment