Posted on 07/19/2004 6:34:39 PM PDT by BobbyGood
Despite the medias obsession with President Bushs failures in Iraq and casting the blame on him even for the CIAs mistakes, John Kerry should be soaring in the polls. But hes not.
Iraq is easily this elections dominant issuealthough the jurys out on how many votes it will swayyet Kerrys polling has barely budged. After all, not being the unpopular guy often counts for a lot in elections.
But this is Kerrys quandary: hes not exactly a supporter of the war, though he voted for it, yet hes not quite antiwar, either.
Fudging positions on intractable issues where clarity can only earn enemies makes sense. But wartime ambiguity for a would-be commander-in-chief does not inspire the necessary confidence among the electorate.
To understand why Kerry cannotand likely will notcapitalize on Bushs Iraq troubles, look at the Democrats recent comments to the NAACP.
In a friendly forum where little was needed to elicit a standing ovation, the Massachusetts senator made a startling accusationor at least it seems he did.
Weve got a plan to invest in new technologies and alternative fuels and protect our environment, so that no young American in uniform is ever held hostage to our dependence on oil from the Middle East, he said near the end of his prepared remarks.
Standing alone, it seems entirely possible he was alluding to the Gulf War or to some hypothetical situation in the future where a Saddam-like tyrant attempts similar hijinks.
The very next words Kerry uttered, however, made clear the intended meaning: Values mean building a strong military and leading strong alliances, so no young American is ever put in harms way because we needlessly insisted on going it alone.
Kerry clearly set the context as the Iraq war with that follow-up statement. Calls to Kerrys campaign office seeking clarification were not returned, perhaps not unintentionally.
Leveling incredibly serious charges by implication is fast becoming a Kerry trademark. He did so after the release of the Senate Intelligence Committee reportwhich actually exonerated Bush from charges that his administration had cooked up evidenceand kicked off the Kerry-Edwards campaign that way.
Here is what Kerry told the assembled crowd when he announced John Edwards as his veep pick: And I can pledge you this: John Edwards and I would never think about sending young Americas sons and daughters into harms way anywhere in the world without telling the American people the truth.
But what did Bush lie about? Al-Qaeda? WMDs? Kerry doesnt bother explaining. Kerry, in fact, doesnt even have the guts to say that Bush lied, but the implication couldnt be clearer.
If Kerrys recent remarks are any indication, a primary Democratic theme this fall will be that Bush has blood on his handsfor waging a war Kerry supported. Immediately after the release of the Senate panels report, Kerry told the New York Times, They were wrong and soldiers lost their lives because they were wrong.
Who are they? Factually, it would have to be the CIA, yet contextually, it appears Kerry was referring to Bush and Cheney. The article seems to back up the latter interpretation.
Four separate calls to the Kerry campaign last week seeking clarification were not returned. A pattern, perhaps?
To be fair, almost every candidate for every office throughout time has muddied the political waters. Try as he might, though, Kerry cant be both pro- and anti-war.
But boy, has he tried.
After voting to authorize the war in 2002and using stark rhetoric about the threat posed by Saddam in his accompanying speechhe has intermittently been a peacenik since. He opposed the $87 billion for rebuilding the country, and now he routinely blasts Bush for launching a war he himself supported.
When hes not busy pandering to the MoveOn.org crowd, Ted Kennedys protégé poses as a hawk. Just Friday, Kerry appeared to back pre-emptive strikes, saying that he would be prepared as president to go get them before they get us.
The caveat he sneaked in right afterward, however, is what reveals his true intentions: if we have sufficient intelligence. What exactly would be sufficient? The fact that he leaves that issue cloudy probably says it all.
Moments later, he offered an apparent endorsement of unilateral action: I will never allow any other country to veto what we need to do and I will never allow any other institution to veto what we need to do to protect our nation. This from the same man who the day earlier who had blasted Bush for needlessly going it alonedespite having done everything short of putting France and Germany in a headlock before amassing a coalition of the willing comprised of more than 35 countries.
Kerry cant dance this way forever and expect to win. Voters need some sense of his proposed direction. For all the brickbats thrown at Bush, at least folks know where he stands.
The same cant be said for Kerry. Voters suffer migraines attempting to reconcile his criticisms that Bush should have submitted to the whims of France and Russia with Kerrys supposed support for unilateral action. Ditto for endorsing preemptive action in between speeches where one of the biggest applause lines is, In our Administration, well never go to war because we want to; well only go to war because we have to.
Maybe Kerry wont deviate much on the War on Terror. Who knows? But thats the point.
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
Your posts is dated and timed 07/19/2004 6:34:39 PM PDT.
Kerrys official position has to have changed at least a couple more times by 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.