Monday, November 01, 2004

Kerry on Iraq... One last time

Please tell me if you can put together a coherent position out of this. I can't. (emphasis mine)

Brokaw: This week you've been very critical of the president because of the missing explosives in Iraq.The fact is, senator, we still don't know what happened to those explosives. How many for sure that were there. Who might have gotten away with them? Is it unfair to the president, just as you believe he's been unfair to you, to blame him for that?

Kerry: No. It's not unfair. Because what we do know, from the commanders on the ground, is that they went there, as they marched to Baghdad. We even read stories today that they broke locks off of the doors, took photographs of materials in there. There were materials. And they left.

Brokaw: The flip side of that is that if you had been president, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. Because you...

Kerry: Not necessarily at all.

Brokaw: But you have said you wouldn't go to war against him...

Kerry: That's not true. Because under the inspection process, Saddam Hussein was required to destroy those kinds of materials and weapons.

Brokaw: But he wasn't destroying them...

Kerry: But that's what you have inspectors for. And that's why I voted for the threat of force.
Because he only does things when you have a legitimate threat of force. It's absolutely impossible and irresponsible to suggest that if I were president, he wouldn't necessarily be gone. He might be gone. Because if he hadn't complied, we might have had to go to war. And we might have gone to war. But if we did, I'll tell you this, Tom. We'd have gone to war with allies in a way that the American people weren't carrying the burden. And the entire world would have understood why we were doing it.

As I'm sure you too can see, the bold sentences obviously contradict each other. Senator, apparently you're "irresponsible," for you yourself just claimed that Saddam only "might be gone." If it is irresponsible to claim so, you are implying that he would necessarily be gone. Blatant contradiction. THIS is why I do not trust Kerry with the War on Terror. Whenever he is asked questions, he responds with a resounding "You bet I might!" Not one to inspire confidence in his decision making capabilities...

Oh, and his delusionary faith in the failure that was UN inspections is apalling. The fact that Saddam never did destroy "those kinds of weapons" while the inspections were in full swing never seems to even sink in. How many years of blatant violations of the UN resolutions would it take for Kerry to force Saddam out? The world will never know, but I doubt he ever would have.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home