FYI. Whether Edwards and Kerry are telling the truth about their Iraq policy or not, what they're saying is a lot closer to your guys' position than to mine.
Wonder how the Dean faction will respond to this. As we know from his political history, Kerry always stays on course when the road gets rough.
Unless you go to Iraq.
"You cannot hide."
Unless you're in Iraq.
We will destroy you.
Unless you're in Iraq.
I'd say that sums up the Kerry/Edwards position nicely.
The problem is, and the thing that Sullivan fails to understand is that the Dems use this "tough talk" only as a means of getting elected. They won't follow through. That's the reason for Kerry's flip flopping on Iraq.
Oh, I think it's easy to understand why Andrew is so fond of John Edwards. Very easy. Has nothing to do with logic, policy, or background.
I'm mean, where's the obligatory photo?
May I suggest one of him in a pink tutu?
I have very little respect remaining for Andrew Sullivan, whose primary goal seems to be getting the government to affirm the particular manner in which he achieves orgasm as absolutely spectacular. Of course, for the swing voters, the Kerry/Edwards team is talking relatively hawkish and responsibly about the war on Terror and Iraq, but can we trust how they will act in practice, given Kerry's speaking on both sides of hundreds of issues, his weak voting history on national security matters, and the chance that there may be new challenges, e.g., other terror attacks, Iran, North Korea, in the next four years?
I have very little respect remaining for Andrew Sullivan, whose primary goal seems to be getting the government to affirm the particular manner in which he achieves orgasm as absolutely spectacular. Of course, for the swing voters, the Kerry/Edwards team is talking relatively hawkish and responsibly about the war on Terror and Iraq, but can we trust how they will act in practice, given Kerry's speaking on both sides of hundreds of issues, his weak voting history on national security matters, and the chance that there may be new challenges, e.g., other terror attacks, Iran, North Korea, in the next four years?
Yesterday Teresa Heinz Kerry told a group of homosexual the following:
"If nothing else, you will have a mom in the White House, you can call on me any time."
She is also told them to call her "Mama T".
Here you go Andrew I hope you are happy now. However your happiness may very short lived because what Mama T said yesterday is going to finish John Kerry once the Bush campaign relate her statement to Middle America.
The comments of a lightweight one-term senator from S. Carolina equals ''commitment''???
Edwards' speech was replete with magical thinking; the insurgents in Iraq will go away because I say they will. They will like us better than they like Bush, so they will lay down their arms.
Andres Sullivan "fecalcicle" alert....
Andrew is lying to himself if he believes this. I thought he was too smart to fall for this crap. Obviously not.
I heard committed and party and stopped listening.
Look for The Green Party candidate, Independent Ralph Nader (the true anti-war candidates) to be the only ones to get a boost out of the Dems convention. Yeeeeeeehaaaa!!!
After reading this thread, and digesting the morning TV news, the thought struck me (perhaps it's not original...):
Have France and Germany been opposing NATO's involvement in the Iraq war as an overt political maneuver against George Bush?
Obviously, Kerry cannot come right out and say "Jacque talked to me the other day and said that France would support NATO involvement if you win." But the repeated statements by Kerry/Edwards for NATO involvement certainly imply that they have some knowledge about the French attitude that might change.
Kerry should be asked directly in the debates: "Why do you think France and Germany will change their attitude on NATO involvement in Iraq?"